Do you believe public opinion expressed through a public outcry sometimes affects public policy?

[Douglas Carpenter]

14 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, it does not always work on every issue. But sometimes a public outcry alters public policy
	11 (79%)
	That is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. Anyone who suggest that government leaders might on some occasions alter their policy because of a public outcry cannot be taken seriously. They are a joke.
	2 (14%)
	Peanut oil is perfect for deep frying homemade french fries.
	1 (7%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Douglas Carpenter]

1. there are post right now mocking the idea that political leaders might respond to a public outcry

I would hope some might explain their opinion

[Rex]

4. Dammed if ya do, dammed if ya don't.

The mocking is nothing new. I think that is the only purpose and not to have any kind of real discussion.

[Sheepshank]

73. I assume you are talking about my thread

and I was responding to idea that DU in and of itself was responsible for policy change....yes, I was making fun of this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3638585

OTOH, if it works so well, they should put that to use for climate change policy and teacher pay and gun control.

[Douglas Carpenter]

89. they did not say ANYTHING OF THE SORT-- here is the verbatim quote you quoted

Obama didn't stop the war on Syrians, WE DID. By we, I mean the peace advocates on this board, and [View all]

Last edited Wed Sep 11, 2013, 05:46 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
elsewhere.

Those who wrote and called our representatives.

Those that demonstrated.

Those that spoke out against the insane notion of launching an unprovoked attack on Syria in clear violation of international law.

We did it. The American people. We were against it from the start and no amount of lobbying for lobbing missiles would deter us.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3638585

how on earth is -- WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE claiming that DU itself did it other than to be a part along with millions and millions of others?

[Sheepshank]

101. Not just the heading in the OP to which I linked

but a myriad of resonses in that thread.

You see what you want to see, I wrote on what I saw. Live with it or don't read and relax a little Francis.

[Skittles]

2. I was just thinking

how fucked up things are when so-called PROGRESSIVES on a DEMOCRATIC BOARD belittle public opposition

[Douglas Carpenter]

5. so the civil rights movement, the labor movement, the anti-Vietnam war movement had no affect on

public policy? Those things only happened because they elected Democrats? That is what did it. But all the activism was a waist of time.

[Skittles]

6. I stopped paying attention to those nitwits on DU

they're simply not credible and thank goodness I find very few of them in real life

[Whisp]

16. I think the difference is

the movements you described meant bodies on the street in demonstrations with the chance of physical harm. People took risks for their need for change.

They didn't do it from an armchair in complete safety, having a beer and a porn film going on in another window.

People who use Caps the most and say Derp a lot, probably don't change things much.

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. is it possible that when internet posting translates into letter writing and phone calling and other

methods to petition the government - it might on some occasion affect decisions on public policy? Or do elected official simply ignore calls, letters and E-mails from their constituency?

[Whisp]

18. I'm sure it has some effect

I'm also sure a lot of people Say they write letters and make calls, but don't really.

And I don't think the turn of events in regards to Syria had anything to do with loud Capping and Derping from the 101st Chairborne. Obama would surely know how the public would react and just played the cards he was sorting for 2 years on the problem, he played them just right. That had nothing to do with screaming keyboardists but with the Obama style of doing things.

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. I'm sure public outcry against further military engagements in the Middle East would

make any Commander and Chief all the more hesitant to use military force - Any form of public outcry including the Internet contributes to a broad political atmosphere. There are pressure pushing on one end that have been pushing for sometime for more military engagements with Syria and/or Iran. If there were no push back against it - there would be little in the political culture to inhibit it from happening.

[Whisp]

26. I think pre Iraq war was probably the loudest and most voices

that I was witness to but that didn't do squat. All the millions in real life demonstrations didn't do a thing if you have a media that has all the real screaming power in the world.

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. it doesn't always work or work fast. The first protest against the Vietnam War took place at the

Boston Commons in 1964 - It was about ten years and thousands of protest later before the war was brought to a close. Also, the Bush administration knew that the people protesting the war were people who were not likely to vote for him anyway. In the case of the Obama Administration - many of the people who oppose certain elements of his policies - whether military strikes on Syria, the Summers issue or the NSA issue are people who voted for him and are part of his popular political base.

[sabrina 1]

46. 70% of Americans supported the Iraq Invasion believing the lies about Iraq being connected

to 9/11 and the lies about WMDs.

People are now far more informed than they were then. Had the level of information that is now available been available back then, public opposition would have stopped that invasion also. But the media did not cover the protests. I spoke to someone recently who did not even know there were anti-Iraq protests.

Why do you think they are so upset over Al Jazeera and RT and the Internet and Bloggers? If pubic opinion did not sway decisions such as going to war, they would not care that people now have other sources of information.

Bushco spent over $300,000,000 to 'sell' the Iraq War, using the Rendon Group, Judith Miller, the MSM to help them sway public opinion.

Ten years later the MSM has lost so much credibility few use them as their main source of news anymore.

It is also a more Global World and opposition from the public in other nations also had an effect on the Syria issue. Britain eg, were not willing to risk another Iraq which THEIR public opposed and are still pursuing the issue of why they were lied to.

[Sunlei]

62. I believed the lies. *Today* I know Bush was going to go to the UN & Cheney didn't let him.

we're ALL paying for those lies and that knee-jerk rape of Americas Federal funds for the rest of our lives and many, many decades after that.

[Sunlei]

60. They do keep count those calls, letters, emails and petitions. (WH petition website also works)

problem with WH petition system is to many sigs required for the issue to cross the presidents desk AND that system can be gamed with scripts that register fake sigs using real peoples names.

problem- some gov officials delete emails/fax especially if it doesn't support their position.

problem- 'form' letters and form petition are counted as ONE count, even if they get thousands of them.

problem- some politicians will make fake science reports, push polls and then use those reports to make laws pass.

expose serious cheating/corruption IMO is the fastest way to get rid of the bad politicians and officials

[cui bono]

38. So... you are now insinuating that the people against the bombing or Summers are drinking

and watching porn while posting on here? And that we all use caps and say derp? And doing all of that means they can't possibly be doing anything else like calling/writing their reps?

You're really going to win people over with that. Do you even realize what you're saying?

Not to mention, this thread wasn't about a specific group of people, it was a general question about how our country/democracy does/doesn't work. But you, of course, had to make it about the people, fellow Dems, that you are so clearly "at war" with on DU.

And btw... why didn't you vote yes on this poll? Do you really not believe in democracy? Do you not believe in governing by the consent of the people?

[Douglas Carpenter]

40. I'm gathering that they have a very different view of what is the appropriate role of the citizenry

and even of the party supporter. They believe that professionals are the ones who are adequately equipped to have sensible opinions and form sensible policies. Their experts and their think tanks and in some case their governmental experts provide the professional politico with the information that neither your nor I nor any lowly ordinary citizen is privy to. The nonprofessional voicing their political opinions as if they know more than the professional politico is no more appropriate than for the common layman to think that he knows more about cardiac surgery than the cardiothoracic surgeon. They probably assume that anyone who has the audacity to think that their opinions are just as valid as the professional politicos are simply ignorant and naive lumpen proletariat who have little to offer and probably spend their time drinking and watching porn. I actually know my Congressman personally and chat with him an average of about once a month and tell him my opinions. I don't suppose the authoritarian Democrats imagine that those of use who are so ignorant and naive to still believe in liberal democracy are capable of such things.

[Whisp]

45. why do you think I want to 'win you over?'

Last edited Wed Sep 18, 2013, 10:58 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm not campaigning for anything. I don't want to win you, ugh.

I know the hate is so deep for some there is no point other than mock. Those are the people I am mocking - the seasoned haters who have a resume of being against everything Obama. The fist shakers and downers who jump on anything the Pugs set out for bait and the media serves out for entertainment.

I know the serious people here who really do make the difference are not going to be offended by my post.

[cui bono]

65. Oh, I don't think you want to win me over, that's for sure. The point is, you should be trying

to get through to people by arguing policy points or something like that if your views actually matter to you and if you really care about what's going on in this country.

I have yet to see a post by you that actually discusses anything of substance, perhaps I missed it/them but seriously, all I remember about you and your posts is they are always meant to bully and insult. Is that how you think Obama wants his most ardent supporters to act?

And I seriously think you are mistaking criticism for hate. If someone is criticizing policy that is hardly hatred of a man, it's hatred of the policies maybe. Even if the criticism is of Obama himself, it's not hatred of him. I don't hate him but I think he is a terrible negotiator. I don't understand how that is perceived as hatred of the man. I would bet if I met him I would like him a lot as a person. But when I discuss him on here I'm talking about him as a president. Two completely separate things. I'm sure it's the same for others. Maybe if you think of it that way whenever you read a criticism it won't hit you the same way and won't get you angry. It seems you are taking it personally or something but you don't have to. Really, it's not about hatred, it's about poor policy.

The most serious posters here probably have you on ignore already.

So again I ask... why do you think it's wrong for people to think they can affect change by making their voices heard? How do you think democracy works? To me, the people expressing their opinions on things BEFORE they actuall happen, as it would be too late after that, is the very definition of democracy. That is how we are governed with the consent of the people. So it is our duty to stay informed and speak out if we want this thing to work. If we don't, well then the ones with the most money win. Of course, that is what we really need to change to get back people power, we need to get money out of elections.

I'm not sure I understand why you think people can't affect change and why it's so wrong for us to speak out and feel we made a difference. Can you tell me?

[Whisp]

66. How very authoritarian of you! or is it Stasian? I forget...

ha! ...telling me what I should be' trying', how I should argue and that 'my' bullying is the wrong kind but the bullying from the *ahem, anti-authoritarians is the right kind.

You shouldn't make take this so personally, it'll give you heartburn or something.

And to your last comment:
I'm not sure I understand why you think people can't affect change and why it's so wrong for us to speak out and feel we made a difference. Can you tell me?

I will say again, there are many here, usually the ones who are anti-Obama true blue through and through, that don't affect positive change - they just yammer the same kinds of insults against the admin of the kind you hear from Fox or Baggers, from their comfy chairs. Same words, same tactics. So, sorry, I don't think that is 'affecting change', not good change anyway. I have no patience for these kinds and don't feel obligated to 'be nice' to their sewage.

[cui bono]

69. That's not at all the gist of my post, but if it makes you feel better to name call go ahead.

You know very well I wasn't ordering you to do anything at all. I'm trying to engage you in a real discussion. An experiment if you will, and I guess it didn't work. That's not taking it personally at all, that's trying to draw you into a discussion.

You've made it pretty clear your mission here on DU is not to discuss policy or actions to affect change, it's simply to judge others and spew hatred at those you don't deem worthy.

I tried to open this to a discussion about how democracy work and whether or not people can affect change and you answered with hatred towards other DUers. Time for you to take a break and get a grip. For your own good. I mean that sincerely, not as an insult. All that festering anger and hatred is not good for you.

[Whisp]

74. oh, did I call you a name?

[cui bono]

75. Thank you for proving my point. The fact that you do it in such a juvenile way

makes it all the better.

[Whisp]

76. really, I wasn't calling you any names.

That I and many Obama supporters have been for a while now, it's the authoritarian/Stasi thing that upsets you?
You got to toughen up, kid.

[cui bono]

84. What makes you think I'm upset? n/t

[Whisp]

91. oh! Now I recognize you. You are this guy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12593094

Complaining to Skinner in ATA that the Barack Obama Group is a..... Group!

A group that has the same rules as any other on the whole site, and you wanted to change that so you can come in and just trash the place however you like and we should just stand there and watch you.

LOL!!!!
nice try tho. It's up there for all to see for a while now. I think there is even a better one by you, but I'm not looking - I just stumbed upon this one and said to myself, self: hey! that's nutz, oh, hey, that guy sounds familiar!

[cui bono]

95. And what do you think that proves?

I stand by what I said in that post. That's what I believe. I'm not hiding it, I've posted about it many times. Why do you think you've found something that you think discredits what I've said in this "discussion" with you?

And really, I'm the one trashing this place? There is not one post by you in this entire thread that has any meaningful and thoughtful discussion in it. It all comes down to hate and ridicule and name calling for you. I would be embarrassed if I were you.

More importantly, what does it have to do with me trying to get you to actually discuss a topic such as democracy and whether people can affect change?

Even more importantly, why can't you actually have a discussion about a real topic?

[Sheepshank]

103. It proves a few things...but it confirms a whole lot else

including all the things Whisp has been talking about in the back and forth between the two of you. I understand Whisp's message, in the manner of cartoons, his posts leave a VALID message with a tongue in cheek approach....you are determined to twist things into absolutes to twist the overall message.

Bitter, is the word I would describe.

[cui bono]

107. Show me where I did that and where I came off bitter.

[Whisp]

77. Yes, I should ask you to mentor me on being mature.

[tazkcmo]

52. I think you assume too much

I'm sure you're aware that posting on the Internet does not preclude physical activism. I have met several DUers that do both. One CAN do both.

[Whisp]

53. Of course. But I am talking about a particular kind of DUer

and there are plenty of those. They stick out like sore thumbs.

[tazkcmo]

55. There are plenty of both types.

The "particular" type you allude to and the You Can't Disagree With MY President And Be A True Liberal type. Such is life.

[Whisp]

58. yah, partisanship on a Democratic forum is so unfair.

Such is life.

[tazkcmo]

59. And your true intentions shine through.

I'll give you credit though. You got me. I thought you were calling for reasonable discussion among like minded folks and the dispensing of false choices. The false choice of either President Obama Is Perfect or President Obama Is Always Wrong. Silly me.

I disagree with my mother, therefore I hate my mother and all women.

[Whisp]

61. and so do yours.

I guess we all have intentions of some sort or other.

[tazkcmo]

63. Mine was to agree with you.

Until you revealed to me that you are a one or the other type. I am not. I find that I can disagree with a person on many issues and still respect and like a person. I am not ashamed of having President Obama as my President even if I disagree with him on some issues.

[cui bono]

67. You've just decided that they do nothing in real life. You actually have no idea what they do IRL.

How would you?

You say they stick out like sore thumbs, so what are the signs? How can you tell by reading posts on here who does not do anything in real life to affect change?

[Whisp]

68. When you hear consistent bagger talk

chances are there's a bag.

[cui bono]

70. So you don't know then. Why did you say that you did? n/t

[L0oniX]

96. You do know you are dealing with a BOG host don't you? That should explain much. n/t

[cui bono]

98. I know. I made an honest and legitimate attempt to get them to discuss democracy

but they couldn't even get one post out on topic that wasn't an attack or attempted insult. But you know what is gained by it? Everyone who reads the exchange can see it all laid out very clearly. That person's only reason for posting on here is to try to anger other DUers. Period.

[L0oniX]

99. That's why ignore is a good thing. Why waste your time responding to them. They are not worth it.

They will respond and you won't see it but others will and they will see it for what it is. You won't feel the need to respond to the worshippers ...which is futile anyway and undignified. It's like trying to convince someone who watches Jersey Shore that watching NOVA is much better for your mind.

[Sheepshank]

104. no, you didn't make an honest attempt

let's be honest here. You attempted to confine a generalized 'cartoon' statement into an abolute and paint a DU'er into a corner. You failed. It was obvious from the start.

It seems to be the tack here on DU lately. As if opinions and statements cannot and are not allowed to vary with the situation. As if times and situation are not fluid. All statments are rigindly required to be aboslutes. As if the one statement has to stand all the time every time without change. Gawd, I hate that false premise being touted her so frequently.

[cui bono]

108. No, I asked a valid question to get a real response and all I got was hatred and nonsense.

Please show examples of what you are accusing me of. I responded to a post and asked how they felt and how they thought democracy worked. They refused to answer, giving me only ridiculous and immature responses.

But please, show me exactly what I did that you describe.

[Jackpine Radical]

79. DERP!

Well, somebody had to do it.

[Whisp]

80. you got a piece of brocolli, or something stuck in your teeth...

when you Derped I saw it.

[Jackpine Radical]

81. Urp.

[Sheepshank]

102. How fucked up is it when Progressives on a DEM

rant, rave, belittle, and make snide comments at those that wish to offer a positive note regarding a Dem President. THEN try and take credit for for anything he does.

[Skittles]

109. self del

not worth it

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Rarely

[ZombieHorde]

7. I like to think so. nt

[rug]

8. I'm going to start a thread about that peanut oil bullshit.

[Douglas Carpenter]

100. well here is the story - Bobby Flay on French Fries

http://www.foodnetwork.com/videos/bobby-flay-on-french-fries-video/40021.html

[Union Scribe]

9. I predict some conspicuously missing names

in this poll. I'm not surprised at the ones running around mocking citizen input affecting policy decisions, though. If they were any more authoritarian they'd have uniforms.

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. I figured out some time ago that the Fox News nuts don't understand what a liberal western democracy

is or have any idea of the assumptions that underpin liberal western democracy. But, it just leaves me gobsmacked to discover that many people who identify as being Democrats - even liberal Democrats are no more clued in to the stuff you were supposed to learn in eighth grade civics than the airheads on Fox and Friends.

[Marr]

20. +1

This would be a tough one to answer without questioning a few BOG paradigms.

[treestar]

10. Well if it does, would it not undermine

the idea that the banksters run everything and the politicians don't care?

[Whisp]

19. ow.

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. the banksters do have a lot of power - but when counterbalanced by an engaged public

it does at least shift the power balance a little bit - sometimes significantly. Politicians will tend to care when the public cares enough to communicate with them in the form of a public outcry.

[treestar]

44. People believe the POTUS listened to them

rather than the banksters, and that's slight? That's major. It changes the whole ball game and makes the banisters-are-killing-us-all crowd completely at another place.

[Douglas Carpenter]

85. money has always had a great deal of influence in politics. Everyone knows that. But

when aggressively channeled properly so does public opinion. I cannot imagine why this is controversial to believe that.

[treestar]

87. So what does the public outcry mean?

Did the public pay money to get into the President's ear?

Makes no sense. Or maybe the media is not entirely corrupt, since it reports a public outcry?

Or maybe the paid professional left then is just as corrupt, but gets heard from time to time?

Money doesn't have to have influence in politics. The voters allow it when they don't pay attention. When they do, apparently the politicians hear. Or at least, that's been the claim.

[Douglas Carpenter]

88. this is basic to democracy. It is how we in the tradition of liberal western democracy think

It is how we have always thought. It is not even controversial among us Americans - especially us Democrats. There are a few factors that influence politics - money is a big one. Public opinion is another. In America we learn about these things from our parents and in our schools. It is part of our tradition. I never imagined until recently that on a supposedly liberal-progressive-Democratic forum- there would be people who do not believe in liberal western democracy or understand how we who do believe in it think.

[Uncle Joe]

11. Certainly.

Thanks for the thread, Douglas Carpenter.

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. I'm just a little bit surprised to discover on a liberal forum there are people who think issue

oriented political activism is a waist of time.

[Uncle Joe]

14. It's easy to get discouraged at the pace of change,

particularly when the people must bring it about themselves despite the corporate media's resistance as opposed to the "Fourth Estate's" assistance and enlightenment.

Above all else we must remain tenacious.

Peace to you.

[baldguy]

15. Pressure from a mob rarely creates good policy.

Thankfully, we haven't seen that occur recently.

[DirkGently]

22. Right. Because the American public isn't "a mob."

Only fascists even think that way.

[baldguy]

24. Perhaps you should remember what happened after 9/11 & rethink your response.

Fascism occurs when the mob makes the rules, not in spite of it.

And again - thankfully, we haven't seen that occur recently.

[DirkGently]

30. Perhaps you should remember Civil Rights and suffrage

... and stop making bad faith analogies in order to argue against the consistent success of American activism throughout our history using a vague, bad-faith comparison.

[baldguy]

33. Suffrage took 50+ years. Civil rights has taken 70 yrs and counting.

And neither campaign held a majority of public opinion until well into their 3rd or 4th decade. Hardly the sudden, overnight outcry by the public fitting the characterization of the OP.

OTOH 9/11 does. Try again.

[cui bono]

39. So what's your definition of "mob rule" then? The amount of time it takes for them to get their way?

That's weird.

Democracy is about being governed with the consent of the people. The govt is made of elected officials who are our representatives. We chose them. We chose them to represent us. I don't understand all the posts lately that don't seem to get that that's what this country is about. We're supposed to say what we think and influence govt. You should be happy about it.

[DirkGently]

90. You know how terrible your analogy is, right?

You're trying to equate the effectiveness of anti-Syrian war sentiment that SHIFTED government policy, with pro-war, anti-Iraq sentiment fanned and manipulated BY the government, in order to argue that that neither can be trusted?

That flies like a one-winged uranium duck. Public activism didn't take us to war in Iraq or create the Patriot Act. Public fear was manipulated by a government intent on carrying those things out. Government successfully took us in a bad direction, not because of public outcry, but by avoiding it with deceit.

That isn't remotely parallel to a President proposing a war that the public immediately rejects, and then backing down accordingly.

Please explain that you are actually making a better argument than that that's just escaping us.

[baldguy]

93. And you're trying to equate Obama and the Bush Regime, as if there was no difference.

All the while you're promoting talking points which are crafted by extremist RW libertarian Republicans.

[DirkGently]

94. What? Who mentioned Bush -- who are even you talking to?

What "RW talking points" are you referring to? McCain and Graham were and are ahead full for any war in the Middle East, anytime, especially Syria.

You're really going off the rails here.

Are you really just this angry that Obama did something progressives wanted? Are you angry or embarrassed for the administration for doing the right thing?

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. it was not the mob that passed the Patriot Act and Invaded Iraq. It was the government

with the full support of the sensible center.

[baldguy]

36. Bush's fascist policies & his imperialist debacle was supported overwhelmingly

By a public that was frightened, cowed & deliberately misinformed about what was happening to them and the world around them. We're still dealing with result of that mob rule. And we will continue to do so throughout the remainder of this century and well into the next.

Of course, there are those who will always find cause to blame Obama entirely for this sad state of affairs, all the while refusing to acknowledge Bush's primary contributions. Some of these myopic "liberals" have posted replies right here in this thread.

[Douglas Carpenter]

37. well yes it was the government manipulating the people - not the people petitioning the government

- that is a very different dynamic. There is a very big difference between the people expressing outrage about the government's policies to the government than for the government to play on peoples' banal fears.

I have to agree that it is just as ridiculous to blame President Obama for everything as it is to blindly support everything he does. In fact it is far more likely that our complaints will be considered seriously by the Obama Administration than by the Bush Administration. When progressives spoke out during the Bush years - we knew that he knew that we were completely against him and would not support him no matter what. While President Obama must surely knows that the vast majority of progressives - even those who strongly disagree with him on some points - voted for him and generally support him anyway. That increases the likelihood that our opinions will count as we have seen albeit in limited form from recent events.

[Turborama]

71. "Fascism occurs when the mob makes the rules, not in spite of it. "

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

GOP Returns to 2000 Dade County Recount Playbook

[baldguy]

92. The anti-Obama crowd here would have us believe these guys are running the current adminitration.

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. those of us who are part of the tradition that believes in liberal - mixed economy - western

Last edited Wed Sep 18, 2013, 01:47 AM - Edit history (1)

democracy have a very different point of view. We feel and we were in most cases raised by our parents to believe and taught in our schools to believe that democracy is not only voting once every two or four years - but it is a participatory exercise that requires an informed public to regularly and routinely petition the government and communicate our opinions to our elected leaders. You may not know this, but many of us had parents and grandparents who literally fought and died for the right of the people to live in this participatory system that you call "pressure from the mob."

[baldguy]

29. How come supposed liberals who claim to be opposed to fascism

Are so quick to use fascist tactics against those who refute their misinformation with obvious, self-evident statements?

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. I don't know what you are talking about. But participatory democracy and the people speaking out

is all we the people have,

[tazkcmo]

54. Me too

I remember my report cards had a Citizenship grade.

[woo me with science]

31. I remember when the Third Way propaganda

was very careful to pretend to want to represent ordinary Americans and their goals for this country.

Now, it does not hesitate to spew pure authoritarian contempt for the public.

I suppose as our Third Way elected officials have increasingly adopted a "Fuck You" attitude toward ordinary Americans, their propaganda mouthpieces were sure to follow.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. Third Way is the Democratic version of the Tea Party

And like the Tea Party, they are so very 2010. So over. So played out.....

[L0oniX]

97. +1 f'kin A n/t

[OnyxCollie]

21. Only when it's really obvious.

"Democratic mass parties are bureaucratically organized under the leadership of party officials, professional party and trade union secretaries, etc.... Of course, one must remember that the term 'democratization' can be misleading. The demos itself, in the sense of an inarticulate mass, never 'governs' larger associations; rather it is governed, and its existence only changes the way in which the executive leaders are selected and the measure of influence which the demos, or better, which social circles from its midst are able to exert upon the content and the direction of administration activities by supplementing what is called 'public opinion.' 'Democratization,' in the sense here intended, does not necessarily mean an increasingly active share of the governed in the authority of the social structure. This may be the result of democratization, but it is not necessarily the case.... The most decisive thing here- and indeed it is rather exclusively so- is the leveling of the governed in opposition to the ruling and bureaucratically articulated groups, which in turn may occupy a quite autocratic position, both in fact and form." -Max Weber

[defacto7]

35. I choose to think we make a difference.

If we do not, then the whole America experiment thing has become a lie. I choose not to believe that.

I think the first poll choice above is a necessity...

[Recursion]

41. What the hell is "public outcry"? (nt)

[Bluenorthwest]

50. This:

Rep DeFazio: Tally constituents calling, emailing, and writing about #Syria: 1135 opposed vs. 18 for.

https://www.facebook.com/RepPeterDeFazio?ref=br_tf

It's also called participatory democracy.

[intheflow]

42. Syria. n/t

[pampango]

43. If you had posted this poll a month ago, many would have felt that government never responds

to public outcry. That corporate control of government has tightened so much in recent decades that you have to go back to the the heyday of the labor movement, the civil rights movement and anti-Vietnam protests to find real examples of it happening.

What a (pleasant) difference a month makes.

[myrna minx]

47. I think it's rather discouraging and sad that there are many here who are mocking and

ridiculing political activism. Occupy was ridiculed for being in the streets and people who write and call their Representatives to voice their concerns are mocked for not being in the streets or thinking they make a difference. It's baffling and, well sad. You just can win with some.

[HappyMe]

48. I don't know if it works 100% of the time.

But I do think it can make a difference. I call or send emails about some issues.

[bigwillq]

49. Yes (nt)

[Bluenorthwest]

51. The Summers thing really burned the folks who wanted him appointed.

They found out about it last week and went ballistic. My Democratic Senator had been opposing that possible nomination for months, had gotten me to express my opinion to others in government and in the end, along with Warren and the others, managed to stop the nomination. The 'pro Summers' folks missed their entire window for defending and promoting him. They were unaware of the issue. By the time they stared whining, it was a done deal. A deal done by those more liberal than they are.
The 'we support everything Obama' crowd is cut off from real politics, they only catch up after the fact and this upsets them. They see others making things happen and they roil and sputter and send nasty PM's saying 'stop it' and all because they don't know how to do democracy.

[Sunlei]

57. yes. Takes years! lots of emails, calls to WH, protest, corruption exposure- here's an example.

[closeupready]

64. Maybe a little, but at the end of the day, it has to be a HUGE outcry, and

one that is almost unanimous.

Otherwise, policy makers don't care what the public wants.

[kentuck]

72. I think most of those that would believe otherwise are late bloomers...?

Most came here after the 2004 elections and many came here after the 2008 elections. They have not been tested by the heat of battle. They don't remember the support from Robert Byrd or Barbara Boxer or Nancy Pelosi or the rooms full of roses that were sent to each of them for their support.

[Sheepshank]

105. See....here is a bit of the problem

you assume that outside of DU, people don't know how to 'do' activism. That they come here to get that game plan. Many join DU AFTER having done the good fight and wanting to mesh with like minded. You presume too much and give individuals too little credit outside of DU.

[JoePhilly]

78. Sometimes, sure.

Did it effect the President on Syria ... unlikely.

On Summers ... also unlikely.

A group on DU created their own false alternative reality. And according to them, that reality had a very certain and predictable future. They were certain of it.

But when their predicted version of the future didn't happen ... did they come to realize that the false reality they created was in fact false ... absolutely not.

They decided that their false reality was still reality, but that THEY had prevented the terrible future they predicted with such certainty.

The President was hell bent on invading Syria and continuing on to Iran ... and he was absolutely going to nominate Summers. There was nothing that could stop these things from happening.

And then ... they stopped him.

[etherealtruth]

82. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2011/03/triangle-shirtwaist-factory-fire-tragedy-turning-point-workers-rights/

[BKH70041]

83. Syria is a good example

I don't know if Obama intended to attack or not, but he certainly made out as though it were a possibility. Public opinion made known that if he did decide it necessary to follow though, it would have been widely unpopular. I can't help but believe that knowing how the public felt had some effect.

[WinkyDink]

86. Civil Rights Movement, anyone?

[Sheepshank]

106. ...way different than unrelenting psts on DU.

but yes, there is a point when time, concerted and consistent efforts support the policiy makers and givbes them the courage to move forward on a policy they likely agree with.