DU Hedge School

[H2O Man]

“Any time two people think exactly alike, it means only one is thinking.”
-- Malcolm X

I went to a grocery store today. The gentleman ahead of me in line was in a discussion about public education with the lady at the cash register. I listened for a moment, then asked, “Are you a teacher?” He said that he used to teach, but now was the superintendent at a nearby school district. I know the lady casually, enough to know that she teaches at another area school. And I’m on the school board at yet another area school district.

Because there weren’t many shoppers there, we were able to carry on an interesting conversation about some of the issues that all three schools face. Because each of us comes from a different position, we each had a somewhat different view of both the problems, and possibilities for dealing with them. Having a unique viewpoint did not translate into any one of us thinking we had a monopoly on “the answer.”

What we all shared was an interest for the quality of education that the students at each school get. This included a shared concern that some of the state and national mandates are having an unintended, negative consequence for a segment of the student population. A “one size fits all” approach overlooks the reality that there are some issues that, while perhaps common in large city public school systems, are very different than those in the rural, small town school systems in our region.

If another customer had not gotten in line behind me, I suspect that the three of us could have easily talked for another half hour or more. Now, that’s the way it should be: when it comes to an issue as important as public schools, people from different backgrounds should be able to talk, and to listen, to other people. It certainly doesn’t mean that we are always going to agree with one another. Nor should we. For complex issues never have a single “right” answer -- although there are sometimes very definite “wrong” approaches.

Certainly, many people who are registered as republicans believe in promoting public education. Yet, at the higher levels, there are republicans who are engaged in a campaign to destroy the public school system. It’s curious how jackasses like O’Reilly and Rush will babble about “the war on Christmas” -- which exists only in their imaginations, while ignoring the very real war on public education.

In my opinion, this “war” is being waged because the primary purpose of public education is to prepare young people to become active participants in the social, economic, and political world that they are part of. In other words, to become good citizens. If we look back, for example, at the first national politician to advocate that tax dollars be invested in public education, we find a man who believed in preparing youngsters to be informed, active community members. (Daniel Dickenson had also been a school teacher, as was his wife. Her father used to own the house in which I now reside.)

Those republicans are in a coordinated effort to create a feudal society in the United States, with an isolated ruling class that has full opportunity to the quality of education that the masses cannot afford. That may sound harsh, and it may sound brutal. But it is the ugly truth. And until we recognize that fact, we will be defenseless against an enemy that is seeking to capitalize upon the ignorance of the peasant classes.

I said that, to say this: I came home, and was looking through at a few OP/threads on DU. On one in particular -- having to do with the 2016 presidential election -- there were some strongly-held opinions expressed about a potential democratic nominee. As has been the case in times past, none more so than 2008, there were strong disagreements between people who were all sincere, and I believe informed, in their beliefs.

A couple people held that if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, all people of good will are obligated to vote for her. One noted that an unwillingness to do so could result in Ted Cruz becoming president. Now, that example is silly, to the extent that it simply can never happen. As such, it can only be seen as a scare tactic that fails to support the very case the person was seeking to make. By derailing an important conversation, it can only backfire.

I’m not interested in discussing the pro and con reasons that people may have in terms of Hillary Clinton. In fact, people can make strong cases both ways. What did concern me was when one person -- someone I respect -- said that if she’s nominated and you aren’t going to vote for her, you should quit posting on this forum. Hogwash.

The Democratic Underground should be an open marketplace for facts and individual opinions, in a search for answers to the questions we face. No one has a monopoly on the truth, any more than any one politician is the Democratic Party. There shouldn’t be any purity tests here (excepting, of course, that those known as “trolls” get zapped). If we are confident in our beliefs, and have the courage of our convictions, we should welcome the opinions of others, even when they are very different than our own.

Obviously, we should be focusing on the 2014 elections. That doesn’t exclude thinking about what is to come in 2016. While it is unlikely that we can totally avoid the foolishness that saturated so many discussions here in 2008, it is possible that we can elevate the tone of those discussions. That is, of course, up to each and every one of us, as individual participants. It is certainly worth a try, isn’t it?

Thank you for your consideration.

H2O Man

[Warpy]

1. A non punitive atmosphere would help a lot

Instead of punishing teachers and looking for ways to structure their jobs that were devised by ivory tower types and that don't work, school boards, superintendents and even the PTA should be looking for ways to help teachers do the job.

I think we'll have to get a whole generation of Republican dead wood out of the way before it happens.

[H2O Man]

3. One thing I've learned,

which holds true in far too many districts, is that a surprising number of school board members view the teachers' union as "the opposition." So long as that continues, the true opposition to public education is empowered. And that's a shame.

[Nay]

31. This of course is true, because the RWers started their march to success by

packing the school boards with their RW buddies. That's why I continue to ask why the Democratic Party refuses to care about local (or state) elections; it's how the VERY successful nuts grabbed ahold of everything, IMO. I think everyone here would agree. So why did the Dem establishment turn its nose up at the 50-state strategy? Why has it never invested any money or energy in state or local Democratic groups? One can only conclude they aren't especially interested in winning races that might improve our lives, and instead concentrate on presidential stuff which, as we can see, doesn't do much for the people who are struggling to fix their local schools - cuz teabaggers and religious nuts run the school board.

[H2O Man]

32. Very well said.

Years ago -- I think in 2004 -- I had noted that the rabid republicans had focused on building from the base up .....and that means starting at the school board level. Another DUer expressed his opinion that I was stupid, and that school boards are non-political. No matter what I (or others) said, this person was convinced that I was an idiot, and that there was no connection between school boards and politics.

The community level is where people of good will need to active, throughout the year, even in "off" years with no elections. And that includes stepping up to the plate, in "on" years, to contest elections against republicans. It is only from the grass roots foundation that we can hope to influence any and all elected representatives, as well as non-elected members of the establishment.

Thank you for hitting the nail on the head!

[DirkGently]

2. Excellent. Thanks for posting this. n/t

[H2O Man]

4. Thank you.

I appreciate that you read it, and took the time to respond!

[scarletwoman]

5. "...it is possible that we can elevate the tone of those discussions." Anything is possible.

And I thank you for your call to civility.

Yes, of course it's worth a try. However, I seriously doubt - given the proclivities already amply demonstrated by numerous DUers on any number of issues - that forbearance will prevail.

For myself, I intend to avoid those arguments altogether, since I do not believe for one moment that our Owners will allow any candidate who has not demonstrated full fealty to Themselves to make it to the General Election. (c.f. Howard Dean)

[H2O Man]

8. Oh, you are right,

of course. A lot of people view arguing as a valid, even high form of debate. And enjoy tossing zingers at those who disagree with them. The internet's version of a contact sport, without the risk of personal injury.

What I'm hoping is that a core group of, for lack of better term, more mature DUers can have more meaningful discussions, without giving in to the temptation to say "bugger you" to those who seek to distract from serious debate. I've noted that several of the DUers that I consider capable of doing that are expressing something similar to what you said -- no coincidence there -- about avoiding those discussions.

[mwyn8]

6. Very good read

& I agree that the oligarchy is actively working on dumbing us down, creating a shortage of water, healthy food; in short a sense of desperation. When you discussed civility I thought of this.


Wish I knew how make these images smaller!!!!

[H2O Man]

11. Thank you.

Years ago, when I interviewed Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman, he spoke about how different groups of people, holding differing values, often did not understand one another's ways of thinking and value systems. But, he said, that should not be a stumbling block that prevents us from respecting each other.

[Samantha]

7. Civics 101 - you have the right to abstain from voting

Last edited Mon Apr 28, 2014, 01:00 AM - Edit history (1)

Suppose you like neither candidates running and decide to just not vote. In this way, those who actually have a preference will decide the election.

But if one does abstain, he or she should not complain about the results.

Just backing up your position on this ....

Sam

[malthaussen]

9. Except in Australia n/t

[liam_laddie]

24. In Australia, if you abstain, you pay a fine...

which IIRC is paid by adding it to your income tax statement. It's not big, maybe $25 or so, but it
seems to be effective, as participation is about 90%. This is what I recall from studying turnout
incentives some years back. It should be applied here, although it might be viewed a poll tax...

[Samantha]

29. Obviously, they do not take civics tenets seriously there

Sam

[H2O Man]

13. Thank you!

I think that everyone should vote .....and not just in presidential contests, or every four years. I think that as citizens, we have both a right and responsibility to vote -- for every right carries responsibilities. From school board elections up to that Oval Office, I believe in voting.

I remember years ago, being at a friend's house to watch a boxing match on television, with a group of fellows. One said that he was definitely voting for Jimmy Carter. A second one said he would not vote for Carter. The first said, "Oh, then you like Reagan. Really?" The second said no, that while only one of those two could win, he disliked what each stood for. He was voting third party, because he believed the nation needed to think outside the very limited box of democrat vs republican.

Now, I voted for Jimmy Carter. It was the second time I voted for him. To be honest, I did not think he was a good president, nor a bad one. I have a much higher opinion of his work as an ex-president. But I am from an extended family that might be called "Kennedy Democrats."

There are times that I think the Democratic Party can say, in good faith, that the Democratic Left should vote for the democratic candidate. In some elections, that is essential. The 1980 contest would seem as good an example as any. Yet there are times when the Democratic Party takes for granted that the Democratic Left has no other option. Taking any substantial group for granted like that it always an error in thinking. The 1988 presidential election provides a stark example of this.

Too often, even on DU, we witness the misinformation about Florida in 2000, when it is claimed that voting third party caused the Bush "victory," when that simply is not true. It is said that in prison, a rumor twice repeated is considered the truth. We should not allow our thinking to be incarcerated by lies. Bush lost to Gore, but the powers-that-be were intent upon placing Cheney (hence, Bush) in office. The Supreme Court stole the election, in as criminal an act of voter fraud as has ever been committed.

I prefer that people vote. I'm less concerned who they vote for, than that they do vote as their conscience dictates. Thus, I also accept that there are good and sincere people who honestly believe that by NOT voting in a particular election contest, they are making the statement they believe in good conscience best represents their values. This in no way should be seen as disqualifying them from voicing their dissatisfaction.

There are also people who believe that their vote simply does not count. In my opinion, they are more likely to be the victims of a system that crushes little people, and causes them to feel they are without power, rather than "lazy." So, it would seem wrong to me,to further disempower them, by saying, "Shut up. You didn't vote; hence, your opinion is of zero value." Indeed, I am convinced that it is far better to engage them in conversation; to show respect for their position; but to find an election -- usually "local" -- where their single vote does count.

There are literally millions of low-income people in this nation that never vote. None of us can change that on the large scale. But each of us has the ability to bring some non-voters into the status of being a registered voter. And I speak from decades of personal experience on that issue. And that includes a significant number of victories in local elections, because of bringing low-income people to vote for their first time.

I can appreciate that others view this very differently than I do. I respect their right to do so. But I am convinced that the approach I take has greater potential.

[CottonBear]

26. H2OMan

This is one of the best ever DU posts. Thank you.

I live in a small city (with a very large poverty level population) in a red state.

I will continue to work to enable and encourage my fellow citizens to vote.

[Samantha]

28. You make too many good points to respond to each so I will just share a few random thoughts

I do take my responsibility to vote very seriously, and I show up at the polls. But in all honesty, if the day arrived when two candidates for president were running and I held both in contempt, I am not at all sure I could convince myself to vote for either. So far that has not happened, but it just might one day unless the Democrats experience some sort of miraculous political reawakening and return to classic Democratic values. Were that to happen that with two candidates had unacceptable positions on important issues and weak moral fiber that I just could not vote for either, I think I would remember that civics lesson.

But there is nothing more important in politics and voting than doing one's homework before following through with a voting decision.

I often think of Nader saying during election 2000 there was no difference between Bush and Gore. I wonder what he thinks about that statement now. I personally was horrified to hear him repeatedly say that, but I do my own research. I was very familiar with the histories of both of these men, and I knew that was a huge misrepresentation (I will be polite here).

I wonder when I hear Jeb Bush is thinking of running, does he honestly believe half this Country has forgotten his behavior (and his lies) during that debacle and that we would possibly consider voting for him? So many problems we have in this Country today, 14 years later, we are experiencing from the George W. Bush* fingerprints in office. Jeb enabled that to happen, violating the Constitution all along the way. Fourteen years is not long enough to forgive and forget.

There are very few things in life one should consider are "win at all costs" -- and stealing elections is not one of those things.

When it comes to being able to respect someone even though they have different personal political leanings, one of the people who is among the top five people I most respect, is former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who is a Republican. He was appointed by Gerald Ford to replace William O. Douglas. In his dissent to the Bush v. Gore majority decision, he wrote the words that actually soothed my soul, meaning I knew when I read them a Republican was confirming my anxiety and distress were well justified. What a man of courage:

It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today’s decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD.html

Of course, with things as they are now, sometimes it just easy to look at the different positions on important issues, and make it an issue election. But with the amount of wholesale lying, coupled with the "performance art" of being a politician, it does get very murky at times, doesn't it? But people like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, Wendy Davis give me hope.

Always a pleasure chatting with you, H20 Man. You keep things provocative but civil.

Sam

[KoKo]

38. Recommend...The OP, Your Replies...and particularly

thanks for refreshing the truth on this:

"Too often, even on DU, we witness the misinformation about Florida in 2000, when it is claimed that voting third party caused the Bush "victory," when that simply is not true. It is said that in prison, a rumor twice repeated is considered the truth. We should not allow our thinking to be incarcerated by lies. Bush lost to Gore, but the powers-that-be were intent upon placing Cheney (hence, Bush) in office. The Supreme Court stole the election, in as criminal an act of voter fraud as has ever been committed.

[malthaussen]

10. Like your comment about feudalism...

... I've been saying that for years. Technically, fwiw, they really want to institute "bastard feudalism," which is based on a body of retainers who have obligations up the ladder, without obligations in the other direction. Strictly speaking, however often honored more in the breach than otherwise, the lords in a true feudal association have various obligations to the peasants which our modern-day feudalists would prefer to eliminate.

As for the schools, they are there to produce the kind of citizen the Ruling Class wants to see, and the plans they are making correspond exactly to that desire. Throw the bums out, and the problem will correct itself.

As for DU... sigh. There's a big difference between argument and discussion (as one would know if he watched Monty Python, lol) I find a lot of DU folks are more interested in "winning" than in searching for truth, which is always more elusive. Lots easier to employ chickenshit debating tactics to convince one's fan club (and oneself?) that they are the Man than to try to find solutions to complex difficulties, many of which may not really have solutions. Fortunately DU is also abundantly supplied with thoughtful, intelligent people who present interesting viewpoints and are often a source of new and useful information. That makes it all worthwhile.

Well, that, and discursive essays by H2O man.

-- Mal

[H2O Man]

14. Well said!

Very well said, indeed. Thank you.

[mountain grammy]

12. and thank you for a clear and honest post. Well said!

[H2O Man]

15. Thank you.

I appreciate that!

[PeoViejo]

16. As long as the Democrats have control of Congress

it won't matter much who becomes President. Note that I didn't say Elected.

This is why 2014 Elections are important.

[H2O Man]

17. Important point.

Thank you.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. A person who doesn't plan to vote for the D nominee is only superficially a democrat.

Reasonable democrats can and should disagree about who the nominee should be.

[H2O Man]

20. That's one point

of view. And a valid one, at that. Likewise, those who may not vote for a specific candidate -- which is clearly distinct from one "who doesn't plan to vote for the D nominee" -- is another, equally valid point of view.

This forum includes plenty of people who are on the Democratic Left; some may be registered democrats, while others are not. Excluding that tiny few "trolls" -- who are of no significance -- each person is as valuable as the next. That some people would not simply enter a voting booth, and vote by party line, does not reduce their value, as compared with a person who always and only votes along party lines.

I am a registered democrat. I believe in the principles that I grew up associating with the Democratic Party. I vote for those candidates who share the same, or similar, value systems. Frequently, over the years, I have been successful in getting people from the Democratic Left -- which I proudly identify with -- to vote for specific democratic candidates, even if those people are not registered democrats.

There are candidates that are identified as "democrats" that I would never campaign for, or vote for. This is generally due to a pattern on their part, of failing to stand up for those principles that I believe are essential. An example currently would be a candidate who advocates for hydrofracking. There is zero chance that I would invest a penny or a second campaigning for such a person -- much less voting for them. Indeed, to turn your phrase for sake of accuracy, it is they who are "only superficially a democrat." Thus, in determining what the problem is, or more to the point, who owns the problem, it would be that candidate, and those in positions of power that back such candidates.

Purity tests are funny things. Personally, I'm more concerned with the purity of water, than I am with meeting the standards of those who would poison that very water, for profit -- be it financial or political career interests. Likewise, I am comfortable with others evaluating candidates, based upon their corporate ties, their positions on war, and other important topics. I suppose that it would be fair to say that I have more respect for people who vote based upon their conscience, than others. But I still respect everyone's right to vote as they see fit.

[The CCC]

19. 0. DU Hedge School

People of good will can and do disagree. We strive for a solution in which everyone gets something and no one gets left out. Unfortunately a good many Republicans are not of good will, and Democrats not voting just puts more Republicans in office.

[H2O Man]

21. Well said.

There's a lot of truth in what you said. Thank you.

I do not think that there is a single honest republican in DC. But I think there are good and decent people in communities across the nation, who are registered as republicans. They have been betrayed by those in power, who pretend to have principles, but who inhabit an ethical gutter.

In the region where I live (upstate New York), I've found that democratic candidates who appeal not only to the Democratic Left, but also to a percentage of republicans who have open minds and values -- and who feel betrayed by their party -- do best.

In recent years, with both a candidate for state senate and one for the House of Representatives, I advocated taking that approach in their campaigns. In both cases, the candidates believed that the Democratic Left had no alternative, and that it was best to focus on appealing to moderate-to-sane republicans. This opened the door to third party candidates, which contributed to both gentlemen losing.

There are some important lessons to be learned there.

[bigtree]

22. good thought-provoking stuff

. . . the kind of post that encourages opinion and welcomes differing (as well as agreeing) views.

I think folks should reflect on just what it is that motivates them to read and post here, and try and understand how many other reasons, interests, and motivations there are among posters in this community. It is that very myriad of opinion, interest, and motivation which provides such a wide landscape of information and opportunity for us to gather up or to project our own expressions or effect our own particular advocacy.

One thing that I would keep in mind as we move to another election season is that there really isn't a magic threshold or trigger that will automatically advance our interests or ideals into action or law.

Although it takes personal effort and determination to propel our personal agenda to a level of debate where folks feel compelled to act on it, it should never be forgotten that we can't advance these goals alone. We need to always strive to garner the most support we can; almost always from folks who may not share every plank and initiative that we do. We bring our firm ideals to the political table (as we do here as DU), and if they advance, most often they do so through compromise.

I always seem to go back to Bayard Rustin's advice:

"In a pluralistic democracy," he wrote, "unity (among we who agree) is a meaningless goal. It is far more important to form alliances with other forces in society which share common needs and common goals, and which are in general agreement over the means to achieve them."

Common needs and common goals are abundant here at DU; more evident than our differences. As you write so eloquently, and much appreciated by me, 'The Democratic Underground should be an open marketplace for facts and individual opinions, in a search for answers to the questions we face. No one has a monopoly on the truth, any more than any one politician is the Democratic Party.'

I think that speaks strongly to where we all live, as we look up from our own difficulties and challenges for support or understanding here on this most excellent discussion board.

[H2O Man]

33. Outstanding!

Thank you so much for this. Very well said.

At risk of sounding like a broken record .....we live in a strange and risk-filled time. For example, the environmental issues that confront us, pose a greater threat to "national" security, than almost any politician in Washington, DC, dares to admit. We need to change the manner in which our society lives ....

To change the way people act,requires a change in the way people think. And you have a wonderful talent: the ability to organize your thoughts, and communicate Ideas to others. And you clearly have an appreciation for the Power of Ideas.

Again, thank you.

[countryjake]

23. Thanky, H20 Man!

Yes, for the sake of our community, it's worth a try (and necessary!). I sure don't look forward to any repeats of what happened here throughout (and after) the '08 election season.

Consideration.

[H2O Man]

34. Thank you!

Some of the nonsense that took place in 2008 was toxic. There was a small group of people who supported one candidate in the democratic primaries, that became enraged when I choose to support another candidate. It wasn't that I was opposed to the candidate they favored; I simply preferred another one (Obama), who I thought had a better chance of winning the general election, and making a change for the better.

That group attempted to get me "tombstoned"! And one began telling others here that I was really Patrick Buchanan. Gracious.

Recently, I've noticed that individual has begun posting here again. While I thought that her charge that I was Buchanan was a giggle, I'm hoping that type of foolishness can be avoided in the future.

Those are, of course, rather extreme examples of the combination of shallow thinking and hostility. But far too many DUers had similar experiences. And that is not only unnecessary, but it distracts from the meaningful discussions and debates that make this the best political forum on the internet.

[blackspade]

25. Great post!

[H2O Man]

35. Thank you!

[cthulu2016]

27. Anyone who plans to not vote for Warren if she's the nominee ought not be posting here

What does it have to do with Hillary? Is she some special case? Anyone who wouldn't vote for Sanders as nominee in 2016 can get bent, too.

People who proclaim that they will refuse to vote for the democratic nominee is 2016 are outside the fairly minimal and easy to remember actual rules of the community.

And people proclaiming that are seeking attention, and getting attention.

There's nothing deep about it. It's trolling for reaction, and then the silly DU nannies provide the desired reaction and then everybody gets to tell themselves they are awesome human beings.

If anybody would really not vote for Hillary if she's the nominee in 2016 then fuck 'em. Or Warren. Or Sanders. Or whoever.

There IS INDEED a moral line past which one would leave the Party, but anyone who thinks that line lies somewhere between Clinton and Warren is too silly to worry about, much less take up the cause of... if any.

[H2O Man]

36. Thank you.

I appreciate your contribution to this discussion. While I do not fully agree, I not only respect your right to your opinion, but I enjoyed having the opportunity to read your post. (In fact, I read it a couple of times.)

I think there are differences between Clinton, and either Sanders or Warren. The most obvious, and perhaps important, is that she is likely to enter the democratic primaries for the 2016 nomination. And, if she does, she would be seen as the favorite to win.

More, Hillary Clinton has a unique background. As a result, people tend to have strong feelings about her. And that, of course, works both ways.

There would seem to be quite a few talented, capable individuals in the Democratic Party, who would be strong candidates in 2016. Not one comes without some flaws. However, in my opinion, past mistakes are only "bad" if a person hasn't learned from them.

The possibility of a Clinton vs Bush contest in 2016 does highlight on of the downsides of current political reality. The United States really should not have "ruling families." At the same time, I'm confident that if that were to take place, the majority of those in the Democratic Party and Democratic Left who may not like Clinton would definitely vote for her.

That's just my opinion, of course; and as such, it is of no more or less importance than anyone else's.

[Raksha]

30. K & R

[H2O Man]

37. Thanks!

[grahamhgreen]

39. That's why they don't put real newspaper in check out lines.