Do you want a LW Bush for President?

[BL611]

IMO the thing that is so bad about Bush is not so much that he is a conservative, but that he is an ideologue. Ideologues are people that are convinced that they are right, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change them. They are people who adjust the facts to their worldview, rather than their worldview to the facts. It's the difference between adhering to an IDEOLOGY and to a PHILOSOPHY.I want a politicians who are philosophically liberal, but not ideologues. Personally I don't find a left wing ideologue much better than a right wing one. I don't want Democrats who will kowtow to corporate interests, but I also don't want Democrats who won't entertain the idea of using markets where they work well, or try to reform inefficient gov't programs. I don't want Democrats who will rush to war, but I wouldn't want Democrats who are pacifists ether. Bottom line is I don't want a Democratic Bush, but a pragmatist that operates from a philosophical base of attempting to make society more just, and that government has SOME role to play in that pursuit.

[blm]

1. I want a Dem who respects the role of CITIZENS enough to trust them with the TRUTH.

And from that foundation built on TRUTH is where all other matters can be debated.

The protection of secrecy and privilege has cost this country and the world FAR TOO MUCH. That priority of past administrations to protect secrecy and privilege led us straight to 9-11 and this Iraq war.

Never again. No more coverup Democratic administrations that protect BushInc over the citizens and our Constitution.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[knight_of_the_star]

2. So who is this leftwing Bush?

Who is it that you feel is the LW Bush?

[BL611]

5. It was not aimed at any particular candidate

just for people to think about what they want in one. Although thinking about it for a second, I would say that a Kucinich type probably fits the bill

[Hippo_Tron]

16. Kucinich isn't nearly as much of an ideologue as Bush is

He's not an absolute pacifist, he supported the war in Afghanistan.

[napi21]

3. Agreed. I don't want an arrogant extreemist of any stripe either.

the problem is, it's VERY hard to find anyone who isn't...at least to some degree. The candidates who WIN, unfortunately need a HUGH amount of $$, and it sure isn't going to come from people like US! Hell, every one of us could give $100, and it wouldn't match a FEW support groups totally funded by that handfull of wealthy influence seekers!

[lancdem]

4. I know what you mean

I feel the same way.

[welshTerrier2]

6. this seems like just semantics to me

i consider myself an ideologue ...

my approach is to start with my own ideological biases. if the "facts" run against my position, i.e. if in a given situation my abstract beliefs are not pragmatic, then i grudgingly yield to the facts. the trick is getting the balance right.

too often, i think we confuse political "pragmatism" with a failure to promote our REAL BELIEFS. so, for example, if we believe that gays should have absolutely equal rights, we should clearly state that allowing gay marriage is the right thing to do. that does not mean, however, that we demand it be implemented immediately. that might not be politically feasible. i think today's Democratic Party is suffering from way too much "pragmatism" and not enough ideology. if you prefer to call it philosophy, that works for me.

i see no reason to say that having an ideology means your are blind and pig-headed and unaccepting of the facts that arise. my definition of ideology means that your values reflect what you see as an ideal. hence, ideology. believing in an ideal does not mean that you are not "pragmatic". you may be pragmatic; you might not be. the two are unrelated.

[BL611]

7. Its not semantics

as i defined it, it is the difference between adjusting reality to your worldview, and your worldview to reality.Ideology is never good as only "grudgingly" yielding to facts will mean that there may be facts you will not yield to. We all suffer from predispositions to one viewpoint, but we should recognize that indulging these dispositions is never good (although to some extent unavoidable). You can never suffer from too much pragmatism, as long as that pragmatism is guided by your ideals.

[welshTerrier2]

10. "as i defined it"

isn't "as i defined it" the perfect example of semantics.

you stated: "Ideology is never good as only "grudgingly" yielding to facts will mean that there may be facts you will not yield to."

here's where i strongly disagree. "grudgingly yielding" is not the same as NOT yielding. it recognizes, to quote a line from the famous Chicago Conspiracy trial, that "facts are nothing without their nuance". it also recognizes that one fact does not a conclusion make. the world we live in is filled with paradoxes. a single fact, even one that directly contradicts our little vision of the world, does NOT necessarily mean that we should abandon our beliefs.

it means that we should double and redouble our efforts to find credible evidence to support our values. this does not mean we ignore the "fact" being presented. it means we weigh it in with all the other facts. again, it's not about ignoring reality; it's about making damned sure that we are not led astray by what appears to be one "out of place hair" on our little heads.

for example, we saw DU posts like: "OMG, they found WMD in Iraq". What should we have done with that fact? What if they actually had found a cache of WMD? does that mean I should trust the bush administration? does it mean that I was dead wrong about whether we should have invaded? am i just burying my head in the sand? not at all. i would have, and should have, remained highly suspicious of whether the "fact" was actual factual. I would have looked for contradicting evidence. i would have challenged the source of the evidence to determine his or her credibility. i would assess whether it would make any sense at all, even if WMD did exist, to topple Saddam and leave a huge, destabilizing power vacuum in his absence. i would have asked what bush's REAL motivation for invading Iraq actually was. starting with a core belief that the US government is a corrupt organization that does not have the best interests of the country or its citizens at heart gives me a very healthy skepticism when issues like war are on the table. it's what allowed me to make the correct call on the IWR and what led people like Hillary Clinton down the wrong path with her tragic statement that she took bush "at his word". She lacked a belief that bush was corrupt and that he was clearly going to war to cater to his oily friends.

that's what i mean by "grudgingly yielding". i don't toss aside my deeply held convictions that are built on a lifetime of experiences and beliefs just because some so called "pragmatist" tosses a "fact" at me. facts are seasonings; they are not the main course. it's what we do with facts and how we integrate them into the gestalt that matters.

[BL611]

12. Umm facts imply something is factual

If it was it would not be a real fact. You should be skeptical about what people present as facts, but if something can be proved to be factual, well then yes you should toss aside your deeply held convictions. Personally I think even if Saddam had chemical weapons, their were still larger strategic threats to the US (Al Que-da) and that the was most likely would not have been justified. If it was found (and again truly so and provable) that Saddam had nuclear weapons and the capacity to launch them at the US (or was close to this scenario), and that did not cause you to reevaluate your position. Then well yes that is bad.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. That smacks of ideology.

What makes you think that even if Saddam had nukes he would have ever used them against us? When did he EVER attack the US?

HE was a pragmatist. Attacking us would mean the instant glassifying of his country. He may have been nuts, but he wasn't crazy.

The same arguments are now being presented as an excuse to preemptively strike Iran. But just because someone CAN do something is no indication that they WILL do something. When has Iran EVER attacked any neighbor?

Am I to throw aside my deeply held conviction that the US should NEVER start a war, because of your deeply held conviction that X is a bad guy who MIGHT attack us?

Who is the ideologue?

[BL611]

14. No you are the one with the rigid position of

the US should NEVER start a war. If a rogue nation acquires nuclear weapons and the capability and intention to use them, than yes in that circumstance I would MOST LIKELY support a preemptive action.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. Please understand this.

NOBODY IS GOING TO START A FUCKING NUCLEAR WAR WITH THE US.

It is not only suicidal, it is unwinnable - no nation, other than Russia, could do fatal damage to the US, while we could turn any other nation in the world, including Russia, into a lake of glass. And everyone in the world knows this. Everyone.

You are making excuses for something that will never happen.

And just how is it an ideological position to forswear pre-emptive war? If we know that we cannot be taken out with a knockout blow, but that we can repond tenfold to anything anyone does to us, how is it to out benefit to say to the world that we are willing to attack anyone, anytime we feel like it?

It is not ideology. It is rationality.

[welshTerrier2]

15. "real facts"

well, that's true. by definition, facts are facts. my point, as you fairly noted, was that we shouldn't just accept things that are presented as facts. nor did you say anything that disagreed with my statement that facts had to be weighed into the gestalt. one fact must compete and balance off against other facts. sometimes a single fact can be determinative; other times not at all.

and, based on MY IDEOLOGY, which reasons that sometimes we must respond to a situation with force if there is no viable alternative, i would use force to respond given the hypothetical you presented.

but let me present someone who has a very different ideology. i think you've dismissed them as a "LW bush" just a little too quickly. let's take the exact same hypothetical you presented and accept the idea that our country was faced with a proven and severe imminent threat. no dispute about the "facts". fair enough?

but let's put President Mahatma Gandhi at the helm. the point isn't that i agree with pacifism as the BEST IDEOLOGY. the question is, based on what argument do you say that his pacifist response is not "pragmatic"? you are reduced to arguing that your position is pragmatic and his is not. but suppose the very argument for a pacifist response he makes is that his pacifism will lead to peace and your militant response will lead to more war. ultimately, aren't you claiming that you believe you are being more pragmatic based on your beliefs when he is making the exact same argument? my point is not that he is right and you are wrong; my point is that it is subjective to argue that someone with an ideology like Gandhi's is less pragmatic than you are.

i guess the part of your thread i'm not receptive to is this business that "my dog's better than your dog". i see no reason to affix a "not pragmatic" label to people with deeply held convictions. i think it's arbitrary to assume that pacificism is by definition "not pragmatic". Gandhi was incredibly effective, wasn't he? I think too much of where we've come to today is too much about the mechanics and not enough about underlying values. there's too much ends justify the means thinking. and politically, there's too much "it's all about winning and what we win doesn't matter that much"

i'm all for being pragmatic, but without a solid core to guide us, we are just squirrels frantically scrambling around looking for nuts.

[BL611]

18. As I said earlier

pragmatism does not imply sacrificing idealism, you can have deeply held convictions and be pragmatic. But when those deeply held convictions interfere with your ability to adjust your views based upon a very complex and always changing world, then it is not an asset (as so in Bush). Sure you could make any argument about anything, but that does not make it convincing.Pacifism is not pragmatic in situations when the other side has no interest in peace, they will simply annihilate you and anybody else who gets in their way (for example, the Nazis).

[BL611]

19. Self Delete

Double post.

[welshTerrier2]

20. to me, your statement is totally subjective

you said "Pacifism is not pragmatic in situations when the other side has no interest in peace".

but they say the very justification for their beliefs is pragmatism. again, they might be entirely wrong but does the fact that they have an ideology make them "not pragmatic"?

it seems to me you are arguing that your approach is BETTER; they are arguing that your approach is LESS PRAGMATIC. i can't see anything but subjectivity in either argument. both represent a point of view. to argue that you are more pragmatic because your view is right is only valid if indeed, your view is right. because, if it is not right, i.e. if it is the less desirable response to the problem proposed, then it is in actuality LESS PRAGMATIC. it's certainly fair to argue that many potentially violent situations have been diffused by employing other means.

so, returning to your initial premise, it's hard to argue that someone who sees themselves as an ideologue is, by definition, someone who does not accept facts when presented with them and who refuses to yield on their beliefs so they can then become "more pragmatic".

[BL611]

21. Yes it does make them less pragmatic

Obviously its a normative question, so they can argue whatever they want and I cannot quantitatively prove them wrong.If somebody has the means and intent to nuke you, and you do nothing, I think most people would be convinced that a pacifist response is not adequate. My intention is not to get into a giant metaphysical argument on truth. I'm saying that their are people out on both the right & left thats views get hardened into a dogmatic and rigid ideology-and that this is bad. Then their are people that believe in certain ideals (i.e. social justice, peace, etc.)but realize they do not have all the answers on how to achieve these ends and therefore try to operate by looking at things with as dispassionate of an analysis as possible, and try to find the best solution. This is in my opinion superior to operating on ideology.

[welshTerrier2]

22. sounds like you're making the point i've been making

you said: "Then their are people that believe in certain ideals (i.e. social justice, peace, etc.)but realize they do not have all the answers on how to achieve these ends and therefore try to operate by looking at things with as dispassionate of an analysis as possible, and try to find the best solution. This is in my opinion superior to operating on ideology."

if you are making the very simple argument that being dogmatic is not usually a good process, i agree only to the point that any given dogma is the wrong dogma for a given situation. tenacity backed with wisdom is not necessarily the wrong path ... the corollary is that overreacting to any given stimuli can just as readily lead to a poor alternative. ultimately, you are trying to prove that changing a position is inherently better than not changing a position and this is, of course, left to subjectivity and specifics.

look at the words you used in your last post. you said, and this has been exactly my point, that "there are people that believe in certain ideals (i.e. social justice, peace, etc.) but realize they do not have all the answers on how to achieve these ends and therefore try to operate by looking at things with as dispassionate of an analysis as possible" ... well, there you go. you are making the same point i've been making. to reiterate the point: "there are people with IDEALS who try to find the best solution". hence, from your own argument, there is nothing implicit in having an ideology that necessitates a failure or unwillingness to adapt to changing realities.

[BL611]

23. Here's the problem

Dogma is IMO wrong in EVERY situation...

[wyldwolf]

8. no, but many here do

They want rule of the base, for the base, and by the base (or who/what they think the base is)

[BL611]

11. Yup.

Unfortunate, but true.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. I agree

I'm not sure Kucinich is an ideologue, but Jesse Jackson might be a good example. When I voted for Jackson in a primary a few years ago (1988, I think), I said, "If I seriously thought this guy could win, I'd think twice about this."

Anyway, if a president isn't willing to go against everything he's ever said and done in the past if the circumstances call for it, I don't want him. If he's more afraid than anything else of being called a hypocrite by rank-and-file ideologues who voted for him, I don't want want him.

In 2004, I voted for Kerry although I disagreed with what he was saying about Iraq. I perceived Kerry a pragmatist who might try two or three different plans to salvage Iraq before throwing in the towel and withdrawing. I also think he would have had us out of there by now, on well on the way to that. That would be later than I would have liked, but a lot sooner than we will be out.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. I agree about Jesse Jackson, but you know as well as I do that he was right about some things

That other candidates wouldn't talk about.

I just want a candidate that for the most part is willing to talk about issues that are unpopular because they need to be talked about and also has a chance of winning. Yes I'll accept that a few things are just political suicide but it seems that taking a stand on anything these days is political suicide.

I'm not asking for 100% ideological purity, I'm asking for candidates to stand up for what they believe in instead of being scared out of doing it by pollsters.

[Jack Rabbit]

24. That why I voted for Jackson in a primary

I live in California, which has a later primary that is almost meaningless now. I often just use my vote as an "attaboy award" for doing things like talking about important issues that no one else does.

Still, I asked myself if Jackson would march us off a cliff being ideologically pure rather than do the ugly thing the situation demanded, I thought that he probably would.

In the summer of 1991, right after the Gulf War, President Bush (the real one, the one who actually won a national election) was riding high in the polls and it looked like the Democrats would simply give him a pass in 1992. A friend asked me who I thought the Democrats should nominate, and I said under those circumstances that Jesse Jackson would be the best. It wouldn't be a question whether he'd make a good president (the presumption being that Bush would be re-elected), but rather that he would use the campaign to articulate concerns that should not be just swept under the rug. Now, who does that better than Jesse Jackson?

As for 100% ideological purity, if that demanded that of a candidate, the only person I'd vote for is me.

[Doctor_J]

26. Like who?

The main problem with * is not that he's "conservative", it's that he's a mean, corrupt, lying, anti-constitutional moron. Who can you think of who's a "LW Bush"???