My Fellow DU-ers: A Question...

[Totally Committed]

I am looking for help on a question that has been flitting in and out of my consciousness more and more as the days (and threads) go by. I was not a member during the primaries or the GE, so all the of the "wars" among the candidte's camps is something I have only heard about. Seeing some of the threads here, I can only omagine what it must have been like if some of the individual posts in some of the threads are any indication.

We are a group of highly informed people, with a passion for politics, or we wouldn't be here. With this Party in such trouble, it is no wonder so many of us are in distress. And, since we are all individuals with different points of view and different ways in which we express ourselves, the passion we feel for a candidate or an issue can boil over into contentiousness if we feel others cannot or will not at least try to see what we are saying. I understand that. It's human nature, really... we all want to be heard and understood.

So, here is my question: With all that has transpired, is it possible for this group of people to put aside bad feelings from the past, and have real conversations about issues and candidates -- even if we disagree or do not support them? Wouldn't it make more sense to try and educate each other? Maybe we could actually learn something about another candidate or issue we never knew before that could help us try and rebuild this Party? We seem to be so intent on tearing each other, our opinions, and the candidates we support apart that I see little hope for rebuilding anything.

For instance, I have expressed a disaffection for certain candidates and certain factions within this Party. I freely admit that. Wouldn't it be better to try and show me positive things about those candidates and factions, than it is to call me names and preach at me? Even if you don't manage to sway me, you might sway someone else who is reading? All that is needed for this to happen is for a greater degree of mutual respect and kindness to be shown. And, in threads about candidates, if you are not a supporter, but have a question to ask or a point to make, try to ask it or make it in such a way that it can be addressed in a productive way. All this "gotcha" and repetitive spamming with the same (in some cases, already debunked) information just degenerates into bad feelings and from what I am seeing, this is becoming increasingly unproductive. And if we need to be anything now, it is PRODUCTIVE.

So, is this possible? Those of you who have been here longer than I have... is it? Are there enough of us willing to try? What do you think?

On edit: Or am I just being too naive? Let's have an honest discussion about this, if we can.

[expatriot]

1. Civility is always good and there should be more of it.

I agree with you, people should remember the Democratic Party is all about the "big tent" and not "my way or the highway."

[KoKo]

2. It would be possible, and has been possible.

But, there are always "candidate operatives" who post all over the internet to pump their candidate. DU is a fertile place for that since it's such a user friendly site. Also we have the occasional Trolls who pop in and stir up trouble and it takes awhile to find them out.

I've found it helpful to look for posters whose point of view one respects in defending a consistent position. The new folks who come here and are honestly seeking information still can find tons of positive news and links here about individual candidates and even different viewpoints within the Dem Party.

:shrug:

[NMDemDist2]

3. I just have to kick this LOL n/t

[IndyOp]

15. Yep. I would swear that lately we have Gore operatives

arriving in droves. I've stopped reading Gore threads and I LOVE Al Gore - I would seriously consider him as a candidate and want to know what he is doing these days. This does NOT mean that I am ready to spend time contemplating 2008.

:kick:

[leanin_green]

24. Or, maybe there just have been a lot of people moved by Gore lately.

[IndyOp]

25. Entirely possible.

I did not mean any disrespect to people who post because they admire Al. It just seemed that there were none and then there were a ton, some of which were 'cheerleading' threads - not providing new information, just saying, "Here is why I like Al. You post reasons why you like Al, too." Those threads are fine, too. Expression of opinion is good!

:hi:

[tavalon]

30. It's the hundredth monkey thing

Sometimes memes spark.

[janx]

31. So right! It also helps to remember that posters are individuals,

not groups, and that those individuals who act in concert (obnoxiously) must be held accountable. (They inevitably are, by the way.)

[Broken_Hero]

4. Yes, there can be open discussion about it...

Because half of the time i have no idea who the heck is running, i had the great fortune to know who john kerry was when he ran last year, because we studied his anti vietnam speech when i was in civics class in high school,but the other canidates i had no idea about, so i had to ask questions, do research....i didn't know Edwards, Clark, or even Dean...and when the debates and what not happened, you get to see how they act, and then there is discussions i had with local dems and what not and the civility they had was pretty amazing, especiall compared to the bush sides slogan "vote for bush or you are traitor, gay, anti american, anti troops"...there is no civility on the RW side that i have seen so far, each RW i have talked with online, or in person has that ignorant chip on their shoulder, they treat it likes its a damn football game or something.

But to your questions, yes, there can be open discussion about it, with me their is open discussion, absolutely...and donn't be afraid to inform us of other canidates, i dont' have cable, or satelitte my main form of news is the internet, and the nbc/abc/cbs news shows in the evening...:)

[EST]

5. You make a lovely point.

Somehow, however, you seem to have missed what I see, which is that most of the discussions concerning candidates and policy already are productive and comparatively free of acrimony. I say comparatively because this board does, indeed, contain many thoughts coming from very passionate people.
Those passions are not limited to politics but seem to run the gamut--I detest politics and the associated wrangling but am passionate about truth, honesty and understanding. Most politicians are liars, from my point of view, and at best must be held, by outside forces, to a very narrow track.
We are a very big family and there will always be fights going on as well as love fests, so one must choose wisely what discussions to partake of.

[blondeatlast]

6. Frame the debate around the issues, not the candidates.

The candidate operatives are pretty easily exposed that way because they are so ill-informed about the issues they can't respond.

Their posts are the ones that turn into flamefests for the rest of our entertainment!

[Totally Committed]

7. But, how are we to learn about he candidates if we only talk issues?

One of the posts above expressed how wonderful it was to already know Kerry from a speach studied in civics class, but the poster went on to say that little was known about some of the other candidates. So, how do we educate each other about our candidates and their stands on the issues without coming off as "operatives"? And, isn't it better to know as much as possible about a "politician" if you are predisposed, as you say you are to disbelieve the lot of them?

How can we encourage each other to see good points in our candidates and others? I am feeling tremendously discouraged about this Party and my own favored candidate's chances these days because of all the rancor and the bad temper. I am saying we need to be more open and less defensive, and maybe a lot more respectful if we are to learn anything. I am willing to try. I would just like to know if there are others who feel this way as well.

[welshTerrier2]

9. short answer ...

the Party is too focussed on personalities and campaigns and not adequately focussed on building a movement ...

you asked: "how do we educate each other about our candidates and their stands on the issues without coming off as "operatives"? "

the short answer is that we should not be educating ourselves about our candidates right now, or, if we do, that should be a miniscule part of our discussions here ... we need to build a "movement of ideas" ... there will be plenty of time during the tedious, election season to learn about individuals ...

[Totally Committed]

11. Okay, that I can se the point to...

great way of putting it.

I agree with you to a point (and almost entirely), but feel that some "personality" needs to be focused-on. A movement can only be as good as the person chosen to lead it (or who has started it). We were on the right side of every issue in the last campaign, but our "message" was scrambled and weak because it was not presented forcefully and agressively enough. A more aware Party would have chosen someone who had shown himself more willing to be in the Republicans' faces like an attack dog, and not someone who was concerned about good manners. People don't find that sort of thing out about a candidate on their own, and if we wait until the Party decides who they want again this time, we are screwed all over again.

I guess it's just a matter of timing?

[welshTerrier2]

34. measuring the candidates on a better process ...

let me repeat that i have no problem with learning about any given candidate or their views ... that's fine ... but i believe we've done it to an unhealthy degree and lost sight of how democracy should work as a result ...

imagine something like this ... it's what i've been pushing for and i've gotten absolutely nowhere ... i had hoped Dean would push for this process but he has not ... here's how things should be working (and how what we should be doing relates to candidates) ...

it's pretty simple really ... it's kind of the exact opposite of what we do now ... the idea is that we build our Party, its platform and our candidates from what we, the "grassroots" see and value ... by grassroots, i don't mean left, right or center ... i mean ALL Democrats ... everything the Party does should eminate from the "little" people ... each and every Democrat should be heard ... who we are, whom we run, what our message is, and what constitutes the soul of the movement we fight for should be built on our collective consciousness ... all processes, especially those prior to "election season", should be predicated on learning what WE think as members of the Democratic Party ...

instead, the process is built in reverse ... the Party elite either fail to communicate with us at all or their information only flows downhill ... they tell us what THEY think ... the surveys THEY send out are not to learn from us and weave our views into a consensus but rather to solicit campaign funds under the guise that they want to hear what we think ... most of them do NOT ...

so, what does this have to do with learning about candidates?? it seems to me that what's more important than whether candidate x believes in this or that is whether candidate x supports the above process and is willing to modify their views on some issues based on it ... rather than measure only specific issues, it seems like it would be more important to demonstrate a receptivity to a more democratic process ... as an example, Wes Clark's recent blogging on TPM was great ... i would like to see much more of that from all Democrats ... it's all about giving the people a voice ...

and, while online blogging promotes a greater exchange of ideas, there are many other avenues that should be utilised ... perhaps every Democrat should host an ongoing blog on their House or Senate website ... perhaps the Democratic Party can do more surveys of Democrats to understand what we want them to do ... the results of these surveys should be published ... there should be frequent, public, intra-Party discusssions of the results ... and Party spokespeople should acknowledge that the will of the grassroots has been heard and that they are looking at alternatives or changes to current stands as the grassroots requested ... in addition to surveys, i believe insisting that elected Democrats hold regular town meetings with their constituents would improve the national dialog ... too many constituents only here from their representatives when they're running for office ...

and this does not mean that elected Democrats are forced to automatically go along with every new survey of the Party's membership ... there can always be room for judgment, negotiation and differences of opinion ... that's fine ... but the Party's processes should begin with the idea that elected Democrats are there to serve us and represent our views ...

some believe the current primary process handles these concerns ... it does NOT ... the Party membership is often presented with a very narrow range of candidates who have not been exposed to a wide variety of views many of us might hold on a wide array of issues ... we are presented with something of a fait accompli (i.e. a done deal) either because candidates are forced to run to the center or because one candidate is the presumptive nominee and has the most funding, name recognition and publicity ... either way, the diversity of ideas in the Party's constituency is often badly narrowed and stifled by the primary process ...

to conclude, i think the measure of a candidate, at least this far in advance of election season, should be more focussed on their struggle to give voice to the people and less on what they themselves are saying on the issues ... giving wings to the common wisdom of the grassroots will build better candidates and better policies and it will breathe new life into our stagnant democracy and our badly out-of-touch Party ...

[blondeatlast]

18. What are the candidate's stands on the issues? That's the point.

What I saw during the primaries, which I survived by being a smart DU consumer, was the candidate's latest talking points, like this gross oversimlification--but not that off-kilter, either:

SL: Clark thinks poverty is bad.

Well, DUH. And subsequent flamefest. And Kerry and Dean approve of it? That's what the threads came down to. And I only clicked on them after that for entertainment.

Try this instead: Enhanced public education reduces poverty, Here's how--

Then, even if it's the candidate's latest TP, the ISSUE is debated, not the candidate.

And again, it serves to expose the operatives in the ranks.

[welshTerrier2]

8. respect and civility and ...

what i find most troubling, and i'm in total agreement that there is considerable room to improve our discourse here, is that many seem to forget that our Party is working for us ... i find it hard to put absolute faith in any candidate ... we should develop our own thoughts and our own positions ... it's fine to enthusiastically support a candidate and have great confidence in them ... but that confidence should never become a substitute for independent thought ...

in a democracy, the people should be the source of a candidate's power ... instead of discussing John Kerry, let's discuss John Kerry's ideas ... instead of unconditionally supporting Wes Clark, let's discuss how Wes Clark thinks he can make our country and our lives better ... the best discussions i have on DU involve a focus on the issues ... when there are disagreements, say on immediate withdrawal from Iraq for example, the discussion is usually insightful and respectful when it's focussed on policy; the discussion is usually disrespectful and not civil when my view disagrees with one of the Party's elites whom the other poster is supporting ...

save your candidate endorsements for the primaries ... they'll be here soon enough ... frankly, candidate supporting, at least to me, leads to the worst aspects of DU ... Kerry wants to help kids get insurance and Clark is a decent, kind man are fine but both come across more as advertisments than serious discourse ... the point is NOT that i disagree with either statement; the point is i hate the advertising ...

i wish we could take all candidate-related posts and put them in their own forum ... we have serious issues facing this country and they should be our main focus ... i've often asked candidate supporters what they think, rather than what their candidate thinks, on a specific issue ... it doesn't always happen but i can't tell you how often i don't get any response at all ... and i wonder whether that poster would immediately change their position if their candidate changed theirs ... i just can't respect that ...

our "candidates" may indeed have more knowledge and expertise than most of us do ... but there is never an excuse for each of us not to educate ourselves and form our own opinions ... "we" need "them" to work for us ...

anyway, i see rabid candidate support as the primary source of disrespectful discourse on DU ... i don't extend this to everyone but i do think candidate supporting makes for less honest discussion ...

[Totally Committed]

10. wT2... these two points:

"instead of discussing John Kerry, let's discuss John Kerry's ideas ... instead of unconditionally supporting Wes Clark, let's discuss how Wes Clark thinks he can make our country and our lives better ... the best discussions i have on DU involve a focus on the issues ..."

That's really a great idea, but even when it is tried, there are those willing t just come in and roil a thread but good, and you and I know that. It's that sort of behavior I'm talking about, because most importantly, I think you are absolutely correct about issues being more important now than ever before. I'd love to be able to talk about my candidate, and how he would be able to effect the lives of the people of this nation without having to feel I had to defend him every other post against something unfair or ehatever... do you see? I am tired of it. I just want to have a conversation, give an opinion, or ask a question without someone attcking me or my canidate personally. So much more could be accomplished.


"when there are disagreements, say on immediate withdrawal from Iraq for example, the discussion is usually insightful and respectful when it's focussed on policy; the discussion is usually disrespectful and not civil when my view disagrees with one of the Party's elites whom the other poster is supporting ..."

That is unfortunate, because you are one of the most respectful and thoughtful posters on this board.. You know that I respect you tremendously. I am feeling very sensitive about those who feel that some of the statements I may have made about my candidate in the past has been "advertisment", as it was never my intent. I sincerely feel that if everyone knew him as I do, there would be so many more willing to support him, even secondarily to their own candidate, than there are now.

[welshTerrier2]

13. TC ...

"I am feeling very sensitive about those who feel that some of the statements I may have made about my candidate in the past has been "advertisment""

i hold you in the highest regard ... if all candidate supporters had your integrity, we would not be confronted with the problems you're raising ... and you are not alone ... i am often blown away by the insights and knowledge that some candidate supporters possess ...

the intent of my post was to discuss the problem as a "DU generalization" ...

i also noticed that many of the posts in this thread that were made before mine expressed a very similar theme ... you've raised a critical point and the responses have been equally excellent ... i hope our admins have a chance to read this thread and perhaps come up with ways of improving the situation ...

gotta run ...

[Stinky The Clown]

36. The thread roilers will always be here. It is up to the OP to control the

flow of the thread. Assuming, of course the thread is one the OP wishes to control. That would include admonishing thread disruptors or just plain old thread pissers.

[blondeatlast]

19. You nailed it, WT2, and I know you were in the trenches then too.

And I'm right there with you: until there has been some formal announcement from at least two candidates, those threads ought to be in their own forum; in fact, I think I'll propose such a thing with a poll in the GD forums.

My mind is focused on 2006--I live in a red state!

[Totally Committed]

20. blondeatlast, you are in a red state...

which issues do you see in your state (can you identify which state?) as being most important? I am really concerned about red states right now.

[blondeatlast]

21. Arizona--and the issue is the border by far, although education

will be big here due to the candidates running for Superintendent of Public Instruction.

We have a Republican, Slade Mead, who left the Rs in disgust over education issues under the current Superintendent. He was asked to become a Democrat and enthusiastically agreed to do so and run.

[Totally Committed]

23. Education is one of my key issues as well. I feel that NCLB has been

a disaster for the country's Public schools and the children trying to get an education in them.

What can we here at DU do to help get your R-turned-D candidate elected? Can we write letters, make phone calls? You should let us know.

I don't know much about border issues, being from MA. My closest "border" is that with NH. :)

[blondeatlast]

26. Campaign is in its infancy now. I haven't even started with them

due to lack of time.

At the moment, financing would be the biggest thing now--I mean he JUST announced within the last couple of weeks.

When things start rolling, I'll let DU know for sure. Tom Horne, who is supposed to be for PUBLIC instruction, seems to work wholly for private schools and is an enormous burr in our Democratic governor's behind!

Edit: Here's Mead's site:
http://www.slademead.com/

[Totally Committed]

27. For those who think, for instance, that education is a "local" issue...

Bill Bennett (yes, THAT Bill Bennett) was out to destroy the Public School System while he was Secretary of Education. Here's a good thread to go read on the subject:

A True Story about Bill Bennett

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2129048

Republicans and the majority of Democrats (not all, but most) see things very differently, even something that can seem as "local" as Public School Education. I take his issue very seriously, because equality of education could lead to equality in other areas: job competition/earning ability, higher education, and quality of life. There are some, again usually on the other side, who see prevention of equality of education as a way to keep the less fortunate less and less fortunate. So, support candidates, even those locally, who run on a stronger school system, and you will never go wrong.

blondeatlast, thanks for the link. I will go take a look, and I hope you will let all of us know how things are going and how we can help, if we can!

[Totally Committed]

32. One last thing:

The Party should be working for us, but I don't think they think that. And, I don't think they care a rat's ass what we think or want, as grassroots activists. They see us as a problem, not a solution. Only a couple of candidates treat their grassroots with respect and consideration. Wes is one of them. And, it is a major reason why I do support him. So, I do agree with this, I just don't know how to change it.

[mcscajun]

12. Kicked and Recommended.

:kick:

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. One suggestion -- attack Dem politicians only on their issues and position

Now I suppose I have been guilty myself of over generalizing.

But, for example, if you don't like Joe Biden instead of saying, "HE's A DLC corporate whore." Point out his voting record and positions statements that you oppose.

If you don't like say Dennis Kucinich, don't repeat the RNC talking point that he is "far left" or "fringe left" or "out of the mainstream." The Republicans already spend countless millions attacking the Democratic Party. We don't need to spread their propaganda for them. Instead point out his positions and voting record that you disagree with and say what ever you want about it.

Anyway, I will do my best not to make over generalized statements.

If you want some info to make your argument -- just go to vote smart.com and find out what is the actual positions and record really is.

here is the link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/

[Adelante]

22. I agree absolutely

Issues will lead to candidate discussion, anyway, but issues should be the starting point, and not the other way around. I also feel DU has gotten a bit loose lately about backup. People seem to be saying what they sense is correct rather than what they can prove to be true. I feel threads about individual Democrats are useful when something relevant has happened that expands on an issue, so I wouldn't want those tucked away entirely. People need to be able to react and sometimes that will involve an individual in particular.

But empty cheerleading threads do annoy me, almost as much as empty Dem-bashing threads, as much as those posts within threads which manipulate supporters of one Dem leader or another into defense; the deliberate dropping of anti-candidate posts in issues threads, for example, turning the issues thread into a candidate thread for the simple-minded purpose of saying, "See! So-and-so's supporters are a cult" or whatever. This tactic has become so common I am often surprised that it is not recognized for what it is.

The largest problem, though, is that issues threads tend to sink like rocks, while the personality threads have the most participation. It would be nice if that changed, but it's a situation that's existed over the two-plus years I've been on DU. Maybe a discussion like this one, which I think is needed, might make DUers think twice about what is of value and what is not as we move forward.

Thanks to TC for raising this :hi:

[Totally Committed]

29. I have grown weary

of the fights and of getting nowhere. It truly has become a "circular firing squad", and we are spending valuable time and energy fighting each other rather than figuring out how to fight the other side. Our electeds seem fairly unwilling to take up that fight on our behalf, so it is only serving the other side to stay focused negatively on our own candidates and issues, and not on them.

You don't have to tell me about issues threads. As the author of more than a couple of Darfur threads, and Poverty/Racism threads that sank llike rocks, I know what you're saying. So, "Personality" threads have the most particpation. If we can only make them DISCUSSIONS about the "personality" and the issue attached to that "personality", and not a rehash of every fight ever fought over him or her, and really listen to each other, we might actually learn something about the issue, the candidate, and each other.

[I Have A Dream]

38. Kick

:kick:

[Paradise]

16. Don't have any hate, remaining,

to spend on any Democratic candidate...

[Alizaryn]

17. Its an absolute neccessity, in my opinion

"With all that has transpired, is it possible for this group of people to put aside bad feelings from the past, and have real conversations about issues and candidates -- even if we disagree or do not support them?"

With 75% of the people around yes and 25% no. I think the majority of us are able to have open ended discussions but there is a smaller segment that would only be willing to see things their own way. (Kinda like everything everywhere...)

[oxbow]

28. We yell at our leaders for being disorganized and infighting

yet we do it ourselves just as well. This is no time for sniping and pettiness. Our democracy has never been in more danger and we need to be at the bad guys' throats, not at each others'.

Thasnks for addressing this TC. I feel exactly as you do, and only hope that we can unite in time to salvage something of the country we had..

[Mz Pip]

33. Yes and no

Some people you can have a civil discussion with, some you can't.

THe only time I ever put anyone on "ignore" was during the primaries. Some people were spirited, in a good way. Some were just plain nasty. Such is the reality of a political message board. Sigh.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[I Have A Dream]

35. In my opinion, as soon as someone starts screaming at the other person...

they've lost the argument, at least in reference to a forum like this. In real life, it's harder for me to say that this is the case because it's more difficult to delay responses. However, everyone has the ability to step away from the computer for a minute to re-evaluate what they're posting before hitting the 'Post message' button.

I've seen examples where people have tried to be fair, and they've been told that their motives are suspect. I've seen posts from the "suspect" people in the past, and they are dedicated people to our cause. (It would be different if they were people with low post counts so that the person declaring their motives to be suspect couldn't be sure that they weren't trolls.)

Sometimes it feels that if someone refuses to be pulled into the craziness, they're deemed unworthy of having a voice here. Actually, these people can be some of our most valuable people -- they can control their emotions, and controlling your emotions is extremely powerful.

[flaminbats]

37. thick skin and deep wounds often go together..

When I first began posting at DU it spooked me how much name calling, personal attacks, and newbie soccer occurred on a moderated forum. I also wondered if any moderators even noticed, but over time I began to understand that any active forum cannot have participants who are uncomfortable in sharing strongly expressed opinions or fear not being liberal enough for others at DU. Being a moderator isn't about banning those who might have too many conservative views, but banning those who assault the motives or personality of a poster they disagree with.

When it comes to calling others freepers, lurkers, trolls, flamebaiters, online spies..who cares? Name calling will not end our debates, nor will a clean debate help our party win. Democratic primary candidates and we who support them will ultimately face a harder challenge. But the most difficult challenge is not having even one progressive candidate on the ballot to support! :kick: