the Nader/third-party thing is still, at its base,

[ulysses]

about the same thing it ever was - the left vs. the center.

If you want to make third parties truly irrelevant, then heal that split.

[Paulie]

1. That would hurt

the sales of the jackboot industry.... :mad:

[aquart]

2. At its base, it's one man's ego vs. his nation.

Ralphie is willing to sacrifice every single one of us for the spotlight.

May he never sleep.

[Kipepeo]

110. I don't think it's about his ego

I think it's about his conscience. I am glad he is running. He obviously doesn't see anyone running who respresents him or the people like him.

Personally, I think he will help make the dem. nominee represent the left more, in order not to lose part of the left to Nader. Anytime someone more liberal runs it just makes the democrats wise up and quit pandering to conservatives that they will never win anyway. Just look at how Kucinich and Dean and Sharpton have pulled Kerry and Edwards left. Hopefully Nader can pull them futher left.

I am sick of Democrats trying to win conservatives...we're not going to get many of them anyway, and we will lose our liberal base in the process. AND we don't need them. If we truly represent the left and the people who usually don't vote b/c they're disillusioned then we won't need a single conservative vote.

[SEAburb]

3. nevermind

.......................

[ulysses]

6. interesting

I've used the same "morally bankrupt" phrase to describe the Clinton administration after welfare "reform" in 1996 and to describe Democrats in Washinton who voted for the IWR.

Yeah, sorry, I read the post before your edit.

[SEAburb]

9. I don't want to get caught up in this crap today

but it's hard not to.

[ulysses]

10. then don't.

:shrug:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

4. The split is in some minds

it's between ideals and reality.

[ulysses]

12. the only thing that changes the present reality

is the championed ideal.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

15. True that

but it's about going after those which are possible.

[RafterMan]

5. Exactly

People think that since Gore couldn't do it, it's impossible.

It isn't.

On the Clark blog, we had moderate Republicans and lefty Greens agreeing on greater principles than ABB. I bet the Kerry could pull it off, too, if he'd only try.

[Old and In the Way]

7. Gore couldn't do it?

He won more votes than any other Democrat, ever, running for President. He won by a 1/2 million votes. Without Nader, he won New Hampshire. Gore won Florida, but 90,000 Nader votes made it close enough for the Republicans to steal.

[RafterMan]

8. Sigh

Since Nader got those votes, no, Gore couldn't do it.

If he had done it, Nader would not have gotten the votes -- Gore would have.

(edited unclear pronouns)

[Walt Starr]

11. Thank you

The assumption that Gore was entitled to Nader votes is the biggest crock of shit the media sold out of the 2000 debacle.

[EXE619K]

13. Thanks be to Mr. Starr!

Nice to see a common-sense Democrat!

:hi:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. Thank You....

According to your logic the Democrats had no greater expectation of their brethren to the left to make a common front against Bushco then the German socialists had of their brethren to the left to make a common front against Hitler...


I'll bet ideological purity was the last thing the communists were thinking about when they were languishing in Hitler's death camp.


The barbarians are at the gate....


The time for parlor games is over....

[Iverson]

74. indeed

One such parlor game that cannot be shed too quickly is referring to non-identical points of view as "parlor games."

Sanctimony is never persuasive.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. It Really Is Parlor Games...

The stakes are too high to indulge in narcissistic fantasies.....

If the need for a common front escapes you there is nothing I can do to convince you...

Those that know are afraid...

And those that aren't afraid don't know...

[Walt Starr]

97. I'd suggest that if you really want to win

you go after some of those 50 million non-voters since they had a much broader impact on the outcome of 2000 than those 1.4 million Nader voters.

Of course, many on the left will continue to sit on their asses and complain about Nader on internet message boards.

:shrug:

[Kipepeo]

111. Starr: Exactly

I am so sick of sites like RalphDon'tRun ....why the obsession? Why don't they start a site instead called KerryRunHarder? If a person votes for Nader it is because he is the candidate who they would most like to represent them...their vote is NOT a Dem. vote that somehow got "stolen." I am so sick of people blaming Nader when he is to blame for nothing. If the Democrats don't win over a certain voter that is THEIR problem, not Nader's. They need to try harder and quit seeing which way the wind blows before deciding how 'liberal' they should be.

[Iverson]

99. some basics

Repetition is not the same thing as support.
A slogan is not the same thing as support.

Giving the right wing what they want until it hurts is not the same thing as opposing the right wing.

If the need to oppose them escapes you, there is nothing I can do to convince you.

[MurikanDemocrat]

14. There is no way to heal purity, idealism, and an expectation for

perfection.

[ulysses]

17. and, like so many others,

you'd have a point if those even approximated the issue. Happily, they don't.

[RafterMan]

19. You can never heal it

if you insist on misdiagnosing it.

[youngred]

103. except that's not what the left wants

thousands of hours and millions of posts and still some in the centre cannot see why the left feels disenfranchised

[Old and In the Way]

16. Left vs. center?

Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

Nader is running a Republican financed diversionary campaign cooked up by Grover Norquist and friends.

[ulysses]

18. if I may quote you.

"Just because you say it, doesn't make it so."

[blondeatlast]

93. Overwhelmongly he was asked not to run; but he will.

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

[waldenx]

20. I sort of disagree

I think it is more likely: brave vs. coward
or even principles vs. whores

[G_j]

21. to some the split is something

that can be healed and where our community becomes something greater, to others it's a bloody wedge driven in with a pile-driver.

When we stop speaking to others like they are idiots we'll go a long way towards healing.

You're point is simple and correct.
Thank you

[arwalden]

22. Call It What It Is Please... Lunatic Fringe Left

-- Allen

[ulysses]

23. I already called it what it was.

11:15 is a little late to engage in "neener-neener" type posts, Allen, but I'll try to keep up if you'll try to actually bring some understanding of what's at issue once in a while.

[arwalden]

36. LOL.. No... I'm standing by my words. They Are Lunatic.

In their universe facts and reason and logic do not exist. Petty payback supersedes all other priorities. Choosing a candidate in an effort to get revenge on an Internet stranger. All or nothing, my way or no way self-destructive kamikaze suicide-bomber mentality. A grotesquely exaggerated caricature of their own ugliest traits. They are a despicable traitorous cabal with a frenzied mob mentality. Unthinking "Heaven's Gate"-type cult worshippers. Truly dangerous.

They have made their choice. Let them rot. I'd sooner chew the warts off a dead cow's bloody rectum before I'd make any overtures to those treasonous bastards. I will not coddle or coo or acquiesce to their demands to be validated. They are beneath contempt, foul. -- I will not deal with political blackmailers. FUCK THEM!

Yes... LUNATIC fringe is the most accurate way to describe them.

"Neener-fucking-neener" my fat hairy ass. What kind of crap is that?

-- Allen

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kodi]

91. now, now. these folks are fully committed to moving us towards Utopia.

even if it is over the dead hulking bodies of the poor, sick, old, and disenfranchised whose suffering they tell us motivates them towards their actions.

if love of humanity is at the heart of revolutionary leftist politics (Che Guevara), one would wonder why those efforts that bring about the least suffering for the least amongst them is not their chosen path of action.

i can only believe that they are willing to ignore the suffering of others for ideological purposes.

nadir is a multi-millionaire, i am not. yet he wants those of us who are hurting to support his cause and help him build a wheat field for future sustenance, all the while we are hungry now and he is not.

i consider politics to be the realm of the possible, not the improbable.

i leave the improbable to children, and religious and ideological zealots.

[youngred]

104. WoW! You nailed me!

You are soooo accurate about the left!

I want to kill everyone for my ideological purpose! The Poor, Fuck em! The Elderly, Fuck em! The disenfranchised, Fuck Em! I don't base anything on reality! I'm a child and religious and ideological zealot all rolled into one! I'm the Super-Left! I don't care who gets hurt as long as I get my Utopia! WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of a strawman argument?

[G_j]

24. check out

my post above in regards to talking to others like they are idiots.

Also, it appears you prefer the split, whats up with that?

[arwalden]

27. Yes... that's it... you're on to me... I actually PREFER the split.

[ulysses]

29. care to offer evidence to the contrary?

[arwalden]

31. Find It Yourself...

[ulysses]

32. no, that's ok.

I feel no need to prove anything for you.

[arwalden]

38. LOL... OMG... How Adorable Is That? --- First You Ask ME For "Proof"

then when I refuse to do petty research for you (does your search function not work?) you then claim that you feel no need to prove anything to me? Un-fucking-real. It's a madhouse! A madhouse! (To quote Charlton Heston.)

Help! I've fallen in a rabbit hole and I can't get out.

-- Allen

[ulysses]

41. it doesn't seem terribly unreasonable.

Another poster made a comment based on your posts with which I happen to agree. You denied it, I asked for evidence to the contrary, and you demanded that *I* disprove what seems true to me. I'm not sure what the disconnect is, but I'm pretty sure that it's on your end, not mine.

[arwalden]

45. Then You Would Be Wrong

[ulysses]

49. no...I really don't think that I am.

:shrug:

[arwalden]

50. But I REALLY AND TRULY do prefer the split. Don't You Get It?

Good riddance to bad trash, I say.

[ulysses]

51. well yes. I've been trying to tell you

that I understand that you'd much rather be rid of any electorally dissenting voices, even those who speak regularly in favor of issues you might be forgiven for considering personal.

[Iverson]

116. for dissent ...

... a kick

[youngred]

105. you're the one making the claim

I have to agree with uly here

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kipepeo]

112. If you call us Lunatic Fringe Left

Then don't whine when we don't vote for your guy.

This Lunatic Fringe Left is more in line with and supportive of "your" party than the Conservatives I guess you'd rather court. You'll never get them, but you'd get us if you quit isolating and insulting us.

[Zomby Woof]

25. nature abhors a vacuum

Nader is tentatively filling the potential void in flame wars created by Dean's decline.

[ulysses]

26. the void being filled, then as now,

by the opposition.

[MurikanDemocrat]

28. The left fringe is but one minority of many in the Democratic Party

They are only as relevant as the other competing minorities; Women, Blacks, Hispanics, GLBTs, labor, Native Americans, moderates, environmentalists, southerner's, north-eastern liberals, and other minorities.

The rest of us must compromise, we never get everything we want, but we persevere and we stay together for the common good. We don't splinter off into other Parties.

But the left fringe, nooooo, we must have our way, we must have our candidate, we must have our agenda, it supersedes the rights and the values of all others, and the common good of all. If we don't get our way, we will not tolerate small steps, but advocate for complete destruction of the entire system so that ALL Democrats suffer, particularly the neediest among us, so that our vengeance can be sated.

And from the destruction we will build a new Party, so the martyrs say. But even this new Party will not resemble utopia of their idealistic and altruistic dreams, for they are not grounded in realities, or the pragmatisms required to juggle the competing interests of many competing minorities.

[ulysses]

30. LOL - so, if the "left fringe"

partakes of none of the good/obedient minorities in the party that you mention, then who, pray tell, makes up that "left fringe"?

[MurikanDemocrat]

33. The nader/3rd Party minority, obviously

[ulysses]

34. but who are they?

:shrug:

[MurikanDemocrat]

37. What possible difference does it make or what relevance?

I don't understand your point? Their expectations are unrealistic. There is no pleasing them.

And the fact is there are more votes to be gained in the center than there are on the left fringe. The nader/3rd Party will be lucky to get 1% this time. This election will be fought over the 10%+ of the swing votes in the center.

Do the math. The majority of the rank and file of the Democratic voters are simply not going to accept a far left agenda. I'm not even saying I don't agree with parts of it, I'm simply saying that a radical shift to the left will never work and will lose more votes than it will gain.

The shift the the right took place over a generation, and any shift back to the left has to take place in small steps. Just STOPPING the shift the the right and the Bush neocon agenda is a major step in the right direction. Trying to sabotage that with 3rd Party dilution is mutiny.

[ulysses]

40. well, you tell me!

You posited the existence of this insatiable fringe. It seems reasonable to ask who, exactly, you think these fruitcakes are.

And the fact is there are more votes to be gained in the center than there are on the left fringe

Then for the love of god, go get those precious centrist votes and quit hounding the leftists who seek greener fields!

[MurikanDemocrat]

43. Excuse me, YOU are the one that started this thread demanding the

Democratic Party heal the split. I have said many times that I don't care what 3rd Party advocates do with their votes. Do as YOU please with your vote and spare US the bullshit.

I truly DON'T have a problem with anyone who wishes to vote their conscience. What I DON'T have any patience for, and what the impatience you see from other DUers here is from, is for the repeated tantrums and emotional extortion and blackmail games played by people a small percentage on the furthest left suggesting that that the vast majority of the Democratic membership should sacrifice THEIR preferred choices to appease the smallest percentage of the Party.

So, I suggest you take your own advise, and get to work for Nader and your 3rd Party of choice, and quit hounding and trying to emotionally extort and blackmail the rest of us into appeasing you or begging for your votes. We have an election to win and no time for an addiction to martyrdom and losing.

[ulysses]

48. I've demanded nothing.

I merely offered a way out of this quagmire. You evidently prefer the quagmire.

[MurikanDemocrat]

54. No, I don't accept your premise that there IS a quagmire

Not for the Democratic Party there isn't. The quagmire exists only in the minds of those with unrealistic expectations and demands who refuse to be pleased.

The majority of the rank and file of the Democratic Party have never been MORE united. Most Nader voters from election 2000 will vote Dem in this election. Poor time to choose this battle.

I'm not worried about nader. I actually think we might pull this off this time. I actually hope Nader does run so we can win in spite of him and we can finally put to rest this notion in the minds of left fringe that they have extortion and blackmail leverage over the Democratic Party. I'd really like to see that.

[ulysses]

58. our hopes coincide, then.

At least, one does hope that a Democratic win will at least put an end to the leftist scapegoating. If you can do it without the left (and you likely won't have to this time, but still) then by all means, please do. The rest of us will continue in our efforts towards positive change.

[MurikanDemocrat]

61. Fair enough

And with that independance, I trust there will be no further calls incumbent on the Democratic Party to "heal the split".

And for the record, I do have hopes that the Party can make some positive changes. I just don't agree with the strategy, methods or timetable prescribed by the far left.

Peace

:hi:

[ulysses]

81. it won't be healed without participation on all sides.

:shrug:

[MurikanDemocrat]

98. Backup and read this exchange again

You were off doing Nader and 3rd Party activities while the rest of us were winning an election without you.

[youngred]

107. which election was that

out of curiosity? Since the DLC took over I see one presidential win that a spatula could have won, a blown presidential election and a series of serious mid-term defeats.

[kodi]

96. bourgeoisie intellectuals who think ideas are more important than people

.

[ulysses]

100. that makes much more sense now.

You'll let me know if you find any of those skulking around, yes?

[kodi]

101. all you need do is attend a bloviating nadir supporter meeting

i have seen it first hand even if you have not.

[Mairead]

35. That post deserves a prize of some sort

Though I'm not sure what would be most appropriate.

[The Magistrate]

53. Well Said, Ms. Democrat!

Well said indeed, Ma'am.

It is, after all, a defining characteristic of compromise that it is never wholly satisfactory to all parties to the compact.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[MurikanDemocrat]

55. A compliment from you is an honor, Sir

I always look forward to your comments. :hi:

[SaddenedDem]

82. Your basic premise is incorrect

Liberals WERE the Democratic party, right up until the day William Jefferson Clinton created and formed the DLC. They called themselves the NEW DEMOCRATS. Read some history and understand what you talk about, before you foolishly move to your keyboard.

NDOL=New Democrats OnLine

It was there, that day, on the formation of the Al Froms, the Terry McAuliffes, the Paul Begalas, the James Carvilles, the Bill Clintons told the left to get the hell out.

There was no discussion.

There was no attempted coalition.

There was a decree.

On that day the Democratic Wing of the Democratic party was told to sit the hell down and shut the hell up.

And today, we see where we have come.

So the liberals have declared war on the pansy assed, pink tutu, rush to look and act just like the republicans arm of the Democratic party.

And the right wing arm continues to dismiss discussion, to strong arm Democrats like Howard Dean and dismiss him as "lunatic fringe." And sites like this encourage that they do so by bullying, berating and demeaning anyone who dares to question their motives.

Well, here's the deal DLCers - I will not sit down and I will not shut up. You choose war, then don't whine when we bring it to your doorstep. Continue to slam the door in our face and we'll continue to kick your ass where it counts - at the polling places on election day.

[youngred]

106. You really have no concept of the left beyond stereotypes and strawmen

Its foolish to argue when you cannot even get the facts about us straight

[Kipepeo]

113. The "fringe left"

The so-called "fringe left" is made up of ALL of those minorities you mentioned. Ulysses hit the nail on the head.

And if you'd rather use the language of the GOP and George Bush to describe the conscience of the Democratic Party (remember it was Dubya who called us "fringe" after the Selection 2000) then don't come crying when we don't exactly embrace your guy with open arms. And please don't cry that Nader "stole" votes from your guy when you debase those very voters as "fringe." Why *would* they want to vote with you when you respect them so little?? tehir vote is just "fringe," right? It's sad you're taking lessons from Dubya.

[The Magistrate]

39. The Problem, Mr. Ulysses, With That Prescription

Is the tremendous disparity in size between the two factions you identify. The left, certainly as many seem to view it here, is in fact a very small slice of the electorate, probably not much over five percent of the total electorate in a general national contest. Center-left and center elements that vote Democratic together amount to nearly half the total electorate. A group one tenth the size of another cannot expect to dictate terms to the more sizeable company. The problem is compounded by two further factors. First, the center, and even center-right elements, of the electorate offer the possibility of growth, for there are some in either group who, although they do not now vote for Democratic candidates, hold a number of views, or are in social and personal situations, very similar to those of center-left and center elements that do vote Democratic consistently, while the committed left, a small segment already, is not going to increase in number signifigantly. Second, large proportions of the center-left and center elements that do vote Democratic, and all the center and center-right elements that do not, actively reject most of what they identify as leftist expressions, so that any assiduous courting of the left is guaranteed to cost votes in these larger elements, and that loss is certain to be greater than anything that could be gained by the courtship.

These realities may be unpleasant, and we may all wish that they were otherwise, but they remain realities, and it is upon realities that strategic calculations must be based in political life. In this situation, the left possesses in its own right only a negative power; it might, by absenting itself, prevent any victory by a center-left bloc, and thus ensure the victory of a rightist bloc. Doing this will have only these two effects. First and most obviously, it will put dedicated rightists into office, and second, it will only increase the distaste of center-left and center elements for the left. Neither of these two certain results of such an action can conceiveably be seen as beneficial to the left.

In this situation, the left really has no choice but to join whole hog in a center-left bloc, however incongenial this might be for some. Further, it can really only do so on terms offered by the center and center-left elements, and with the understanding that efforts to increase the vote of the bloc can only be aimed towards the center and center-right, for that is the only place more votes can be got in any number. It must be understood that this can be done successfully only with rhetoric that avoids many usages dear to the left.

Such a strategy is necessary for achieving the isolation of the far right, and this is essential for reversing the generally rightward drift of political life. The far right is a larger bloc than the left, and much about it is incongenial to center, and even center-right elements. These must be encouraged to pull free of its influence, and the best way to do this is to draw center and center-right elements into the Democratic Party. The enemy, remember, denounces the Democratic Party as the very epitome of the left, regardless of how many leftists here may feel in the question, and to attach center and even center-right elements to the Party is to give those persons who so attach themselves the feeling that they have signed on to the left; to have gotten them over an internal hump, so to speak, in which they must necessarily have realized being toward the left is not a bad thing.

It will then be much easier to approach center and even center-right elements with a more leftist view. In doing this, it will be adviseable for the left to learn a new style of vocabulary particularly, and to discard some elements of discourse that have never served to attract more than a small number of persons. This will have to include open appeals to patriotism, and even to religious faith, in which ways are found to couch in these vernaculars leftist programs and views. It can be done, but only if people are taken at the value they place on themselves and their views.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[union_maid]

42. Most of that should be engraved in stone somewhere

That is the way it is. It's not the way I'd prefer it to be, but it is abolutely and unquestionably, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the way it is. Some of the people I know who would affirm that statement are socialists by preference. I'm a social democrat by inclination, but I know that every word that Magistrate wrote is true and what I'd like to see doesn't change that at all.

[The Magistrate]

46. Thank you, Ma'am

My personal views are a good deal more radical than many here suspect, but the worst mistake a strategist can make is to allow desire to corrupt assesment of what can be achieved with the means to hand against the present foe on the ground of the encounter.

"An election differs from a civil war only as the bloodless surrender of a force outnumbered in the field differs from Waterloo."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[ulysses]

44. and a problem or two in return.

A group one tenth the size of another cannot expect to dictate terms to the more sizeable company.

Perhaps not, but four years of sackcloth and ashes tells me that the left is, perhaps, a bit more important to the Democratic party than sheer percentages might indicate.

In this situation, the left really has no choice but to join whole hog in a center-left bloc, however incongenial this might be for some. Further, it can really only do so on terms offered by the center and center-left elements, and with the understanding that efforts to increase the vote of the bloc can only be aimed towards the center and center-right, for that is the only place more votes can be got in any number. It must be understood that this can be done successfully only with rhetoric that avoids many usages dear to the left.

No. If we're to discuss things in hard-nosed electoral terms, then let the centrists either offer a coalition with the left or win *without* the left. If they can achieve the latter, so be it, but let it at least be an end to scapegoating. It'll be no worse for the left than the current situation.

Then, I suppose that you'll find it as easy to dismiss these points as you found it last night to call for my expulsion from DU.

[The Magistrate]

52. If You Are Advocating For Nader, Sir

Then we do have a problem, however much that would pain me. It remains and will remain my view that electioneering for Nader is precisely equivalent to electioneering for any Republican: both seek to encompass the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee, and so must be viewed as hostile, since the election of that nominee is my desire and my purpose in this crisis afflicting our nation.

That the left enjoys a negative power such as you describe is part of my analysis above. That it gains any benefit for the left to exercise that power remains a highly dubious proposition. Doing so will certainly put rightists in office, and will, as you have seen here, provoke a good deal of anger and bitterness in the larger body of center-left and center Party members, and fire in them a resolve to, if necessary, get along without the splinter altogether, which they may well be able to do. Even large portions of the left faction are not inclined for a Gotterdammerung and march into ostracized exile, that would be the certain consequence if a splinterist strike should prove the margin of defeat this year.

Nor, Sir, is the question properly whether things could be worse for the left, but whether they could be better. The most dangerous words in the language, Sir, are "it can't get any worse." Never believe that, my friend: it can always get worse, so long as breath remains. For the left to accept coalition with a center-left bloc could very well lead to improvement for the situation of the left, provided a long-term outlook was adopted and pursued, and a certain amount of self-discipline and self-examinatiuon were exercised.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[RafterMan]

56. It will only put rightists in power

if you can't find a balance to hold the coalition together.

Ulysses is saying this is possible, you are saying you refuse to offer any terms. Gore has convinced you that the left is beyond reach. Apparently, you think Gore-Lieberman was the best offer the Democrats could ever made, and the left were absolutist madmen to refuse such generosity.

Now here's a little dose of realism for *you*: what 2000 proved is that the Democratic party *has* to find a way to bridge the left to the center, or find another constituency to replace them. It's that simple. All the parts of the party have that "negative power" you so darkly describe -- ask the Reagan Democrats. Ask the Southern Democrats.

I don't really think it'll be that hard a job of fence mending, issue-wise. Yet before one horse is traded, before one bone is thrown, people start spewing out "traitor", "splitter" and "turd".

Try that with the other groups in the Democratic party and see what happens.

[The Magistrate]

63. Propose Your Terms, Sir

What do you feel is the balance required?

What do you want; what do you think is necessary for the left to remain in a bloc against the right with center-left and center elements?

There have been no real proposals. There have been demands for particular candidates, who have been rejected decisively at the polls by the rank and file voters of the Party. There have been demands for suicidal actions by office-holders; there have been demands for a purge of centerist elements from the Party structure. These things are far beyond what the weight of the persons making them can hope to commmand; even to make them at all shows a complete lack of understanding of the practical realities of political organization amd effectiveness.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[RafterMan]

65. I'm not the best person to ask

I'm a hardcore realist/pragmatist, ranging from left to right on the same issue wherever I find workable solutions.

But since you do ask, I might try:

1) Say the war was wrong. Just say it. Just say it was a dumb-ass thing to do. Kerry has a great quote: "Am I mad about it? You're goddamn right I am." But that was made during the time HD was hot, and he's tempered it since. But keeping that tone in the general election will peel off Nader voters like sunburn. And it won't alienate the center, either. They're deeply unsure about the war, and SACEUR Clark can back him up to keep him from looking like an appeaser. Most people will forgive the IWR vote if he just shows he understands what the damn problem is.

2) Kerry has a great energy policy. Best I've heard. Greens love that sort of thing. But I've never really heard about it from him, I had to find it on his website. To my eyes, hammering at "the Cheney oilmen and their secret deals" while proposing a solid alternative fuels package is a winner with both the center and the left. Especially since the man in the street now associates oil dependency with 9/11. But he's got to *lead* with it. The left has seen these piece of paper policies before. I believe Kerry really understands it, but I don't know why anyone else would believe it, based on his campaign.

3) Corporate greed. The left is *always* on about this. And middle-America hates it too. Slam Enron, over and over and over. Get a good corporate accountability plan front and center. Get Spitzer out there, talking up his record and slamming dirty deals. Show them you mean it. Of course, to some on the left, any business with more than two people is evil, but if you really look like you're trying to clean things up, the left will feel less dirty when voting for you.

4) Progressive taxation. I liked Clark's plan, and you can argue about how to divvy up the spoils. The point is, tax the rich and give to the working class. It fits progressive idealism and middle-class greed.

I could probably go on if I thought about it. I think it's 50% tone and 50% policy, and wins can be had on both ends of the spectrum with the same move. I really believe this. Gore bored me, everyone I know, and the left. Don't repeat his mistakes -- Kerry doesn't have to.

[The Magistrate]

67. All But One Are Already Present, Sir

The "the war was wrong" statement you are not going to hear in the general election. You will a great deal of criticism of the various lies and incompetence involved in it, but you will not hear that statement; it would be far too easy to caricature, and no professional would say it. Lest you think me in disagreement with the statement, my own opposition to the exercise was as strenuous as anything you may have seen me direct towards splinterists recently. But that statement will not be made. And why, for lack of such a formula of meaningless words, persons would see fit to return to office the actual initiator of the invasion passes my understanding, Sir.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[RafterMan]

69. But

That's almost my point.

There's not a huge gap. The left was all over the Dean campaign. What were his radical proposals? None. I repeat: None. The point is, most of the meat is already there. But you'd never guess it from the campaign. It's like an afterthought. The unspoken word in the anti-ABB camp is "lip service". Like on point four: does "roll back Bush tax-cuts" capture your imagination? Thought not.

As for point one, Clark said it and nobody caricatured him for that position. And I'm afraid if it doesn't happen, it's going to be a deal-killer. The reason it's so important is that "We did the right thing" is America's exit line. We have to learn the lesson now.

[The Magistrate]

70. Indeed, Sir

It is the immateriality of the thing that points toward the conclusion it is more a question of personality type than of any other thing. Some persons place a premium on out-sider status, and will find reasons to reinforce that identity even if they must conjure them up out of thin air. Meet them half-way towards inclusion, and they will simply retreat till the distance they prefer from any larger grouping is restored. Nothing can really be done about it; it is not, at bottom, a political matter, but more in the line of lunch-room cliques at a high school.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[RafterMan]

71. It is not "immaterial"

It's focus.

It's showing people you care about what they care about. How is that different from winning any other vote? If a centrist voter who doesn't like Bush doesn't believe in your candidacy, he stays home. If a leftist voter who doesn't like Bush doesn't believe in your candidacy, he votes Green. Solution: Identify you issues that both ends can agree with and *focus* on them. The response to lefties concerned about Kerry here has not been to strut his good side, but to say, "Fuck you, Bush-lover." If you think things like impressions, feelings and attitudes can be removed from politics, come back to me in ten years when *you* get out of high school. Talk about mindless idealism.

And it's not just personality. When Kerry got hot, his stump speech was a Democratic candidate Greatest Hits record. I was mad (because I supported a candidate he was riffing on) but it was effective, and he drew off great chunks of support from the others.

If you're really saying, "But Kerry can't help but come across as phony" then you'll lose without Nader. If you're saying, "We're going toe-to-toe against Bush on Iraq, but we're going to agree with him," I still say you'll lose. But if you remove from your mind the idea that appeasing the left means alienating the center, you can't lose.

[ulysses]

87. well, damn!

Very nicely said, friend!

[ulysses]

57. ...

Then we do have a problem, however much that would pain me.

I'll remember that, should I begin to advocate for Nader. As I'm not doing so now, I consider myself fortunate to not yet be on your hit list. I found your posts last night disappointing in the extreme.

it can always get worse, so long as breath remains.

This is certainly true, and not a proposition limited to a Republican era.

For the left to accept coalition with a center-left bloc could very well lead to improvement for the situation of the left, provided a long-term outlook was adopted and pursued, and a certain amount of self-discipline and self-examinatiuon were exercised.

True, but you did not propose anything resembling a coalition in your previous post. If it's to be a coalition, then fine. If it's to be something else, then we have a problem. Wash, rinse, repeat.

I'm being called to the marital bed and will rejoin in the morning.

[union_maid]

59. How about the left bringing something to the table?

Their own votes aren't enough if they're insisting on positions that will cost much more support than they can provide. One of my biggest complaints about Nader in 2000 was the way he picked off the low hanging fruit and never cultivated anything. What the left could try to do is to organize among workers and people who wish they were still workers. They used to do that. Go out there and start trying to convince some of those blue collar workers who moved to the Republicans in Ronald Reagan's era that moving leftward would be in their own best interest. If, however, the left starts to do that - here's a hint born of experience - don't use the term "struggle of the proletariat" when trying to win over social conservatives. "Ruling class", however apt, is not a winner either.

[ulysses]

76. how fortunate we are, then, for two things:

1. The left brings more than just votes. It also brings activism, ideas, and money.

2. No one is insisting on any ideas that can't be won with a little effort and time. No one is insisting that the Green Party platform be adopted wholesale. Yet. ;-)

don't use the term "struggle of the proletariat" when trying to win over social conservatives

Having never used the phrase in my lifetime that I recall, I'll continue to be watchful, lest it come boiling up out of my communist subconsious. :eyes:

[The Magistrate]

60. Coalition Is Precisely What Was Suggested, Sir

It was only pointed out that the left is not in any positions to dictate the terms of the coalition, or its strategy: it is distincly a junior partner in the only coin that counts, votes, and must accept that limitation.

If you were not advocating for Nader, no comments of mine against persons doing so could have applied to you. The defeat of the criminals of the '00 Coup is a serious business, the most important before the country at this time, and persons who mean to act in ways that impair the chance for this ought to be rebuked, and universally.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[ulysses]

77. I don't define a coalition

as a relationship in which one party dictates the terms wholesale to the other.

If you were not advocating for Nader, no comments of mine against persons doing so could have applied to you.

Here's the deal - in two and a half years here, I haven't seen anyone advocate for Nader. I've seen plenty of people declare *their* intention to vote for him and/or defend past votes, but that is not advocacy, especially when in response to calls for glorious purge such as we've had here the last couple of days.

[The Magistrate]

115. A Distinction Without Difference, Sir

People who declare the intention to vote for the wretch are advocating for him. No one declares an intention except in the hope others will applaud and join along.

Coalitions come together, Sir, because each seperate element perceives some item of its interest that cannot be got on its own, or can be gotten more easily in company with some other or others. It is in such mutuality of interest that the roots lie. It is manifestly in the interests of the left to prevent rightists holding office in the government of our country; the only means available for the left to secure this interest is in coalition with the Democratic Party, using the tactic of Popular Front to build as broad a bloc as possible against the rightists. In any such coalition, under present circumstances, the left must be a decidedly junior member, for it is far and away the least numerous faction of those that must join in the bloc, and it brings no decisive assets, such as monies or skill, into the partnership. It does not even have reliable organization to offer. In such a situation, the only real option, if the interest of barring rightists from office in government is to be gained, is to sign on whatever the terms, and seek to expand the share of power enjoyed through loyalty and effective operation.

"Who cannot obey, cannot command."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[G_j]

64. well I guess I'll just have to get my passport together

If the left is really as weak and puny as you say then I guess I would belong somewhere else. Fortunately, I don't really believe that. I think on many individual issues Americans can be much more progressive than is generally perceived. It has a lot to do with how the definitions of liberal or progressive are framed, and it's really the right who gets to spin these definitions. Many people would not call themselves liberals because the right has worked hard to make liberal a dirty word, but their actual views may contradict this. If we could somehow figure out how to frame the debate ourselves for a change, instead of the right always doing it, there could be a major change in perceptions. The word "liberal" in particular has been made toxic by the right. I wish at times we could just dump it along with "left wing". In this sense, your take on the language we use is an important point.

[The Magistrate]

68. A Good Start To That, Sir

Would be for persons on the left to stop insisting on purist and maximalist positions, and acting in ways it is so easy to caricature. That a great many people could potentially be won to the left is clear toall serious observers, but it will not occur until the left alters the way it addresses issues and the people of the country.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[ulysses]

83. "The People's Platform"

http://www.newtonsbaby.com/left

This project began in the fall of 2001 as an effort to make that very start. (The original thread was here - http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=1106&forum=DCForumID22&archive=yes You can see for yourself who participated...) It's been a while since I read through the site, but I don't recall anything there that could remotely be called "purist". Perhaps you could enlighten me.

editing to add a link to a second thread on all this. http://www.democraticunderground.com/forum_archive_html/DCForumID34/589.html

[G_j]

84. are purists confined to any one group?

aren't there moderate "purists" also?

[ulysses]

85. yup.

They tend to go under different names, though.

[G_j]

86. it's a tradition

we often like to define the "other"
"Lunatic fringe" comes to mind for some reason....

[buddhamama]

94. ulysses

i can't get your second link to work; i'd
be interested in reading through those threads again.

[ulysses]

95. the page seems to be gone.

The link breaks from google now, too. Here's their cached version:

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:i74tFNShtLEJ:www.democraticunderground.com/forum_archive_html/DCForumID34/589.html+site:democraticunderground.com+%22how+do+we+work+together%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[gate of the sun]

66. how would you heal that split?

I want to know because it is getting split wide open? All the rhetoric on here....what would you do to heal that split?

[ulysses]

80. there has to be honest and open discussion,

without the usual rancor, suspicion and name-calling. This is incumbent on all sides, and without truer understanding of what all parties actually want, the split will remain.

[G_j]

88. it's always wise to start by finding

common ground, and there always is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. A Recent Harris Poll Demonstrated That

18% of Americans identify themselves as liberal

30% of Americans identify themselves as conservative

40% of Americans identify themselves as moderates

When confronted with these cold facts we can:

-pretend they don't exist

-call our fellow Americans sheeple who don't know what's good for them

or

-reach out to our "moderate" brothers and sisters and form a coalition against the right

I choose the latter but many of my brethren on this board choose to go down in the flames of ideological purity....

[ulysses]

78. I choose coalition as well.

In fact, I've actively tried to foster exactly that here in the past. Guess who didn't show up.

[G_j]

79. when the star belly sneeches

define the language, how many are really going to willingly expose their bellys?

After all the years of L-word bashing, how many are going to call themselves liberal?

[youngred]

108. I have been here for 2.5 years

and have worked with green and dem party activists in the real world as well. The Left wants to coalition. They want a say, they want a change. What they don't want is exclusively Moderate/DLC tickets. What they want is someone anywhere who speaks to and for them. The left wants to stop being blamed for everything that goes wrong in the party. But still some in the centre begrudge and withold and block and attack the left. I've been trying since 2000 to bring people together, but only one side seems willing to talk. Then when there is an alternative and some people begin to think why should I masochistically stick around for this kind of abuse it comes raining down like knives.

ideological purity be damned
soulless pragmatism be damned

[Kipepeo]

114. OR...

We can reach out to the people who don't figure into the polls instead of grasping for the people who already vote moderate or conservative.

I don't WANT those people if it means sacrificing our ideals. I'd ratehr get the people who are disenfrachised.

[devoedem]

89. Agreed.

The Democratic party needs to heal that split, then there would be no vacuum for a third party to fill.

[buddhamama]

90. the split

like most things is politics is complicated and can't be healed by a hand shake.

in many ways i feel DU magnifies the differences of left v. center and they appear sharper, more defined than they really are. we've entrenched ourselves,
draw our battle lines and formed strongly held opinions.
but out in the real world of the average person the lines are not hard and fast; out there, there is grey.

if voting percentages tell us anything it's that, for whatever reason the majority of the citizenry is not interested in politics per se but, the more immediate course of their lives and how the party politics affects them.

i'm often ashamed of myself for my part in these arguments.
why? because the people who really need help are not on the other side of the computer. at its base the split for me stems from the those in need, and my values--what i value.

this is not to say that the center does not value people, or they are without values, it is a difference in perceptions and obtainment. the best course of action to achieve the goals IS at the heart of the split.

i don't know how to fix it. i believe it is a mistake too, for us to solely rely on electoral politics to fix the problems and differences.
but each little measure; action, toward reconciliation
and agreement, can only do some good for those i claim to care for, to fight for.

ok rambling,
without saying a whole lot that hasn't been said a thousands times before.

lastly in my defense, i am not a lunatic fringe or close minded,
obstinate in my approach. one path, one way is not the answer.

[blondeatlast]

I'm hardly a centrist.

Universal Health Care (NOT insurance)
Anti-NAFTA
Pro-labor
Pro-public education

And I have, am, and probably always will be, a PROUD Democrat. I just battle within the party.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ulysses]

102. mods, please feel free to lock this if you wish.

Nothing but more flames coming of it anyway. Let's let all the Nader threads be by those who want to complain about having the subject thrown in their faces.

[GreenPartyVoter]

109. Fix the situation by getting ranked voting

into play, along with the other voting election reforms listed on my website.

[IrateCitizen]

117. I disagree, ulysses -- it's about the "curse of the New Deal"

By that, I mean that this problem, at its root, is about the centralization of power performed under FDR's New Deal policies, and how that has confined the fight for progressive change over the decades since.

What do I mean by this? Quite simple, really. The New Deal WAS a great program, but the means by which it was accomplished may have actually caused more problems in the overall view of things, because it was built around the idea of centralizing power within the Federal Government. All that power that was brought to Washington DC helped to get us out of the Depression, but it also helped create the Imperial Presidency we have today, along with a Federal Government apparatus that is seen as largely out-of-touch with the real problems that people face.

Additionally, since so many reforms were won under the New Deal through government intervention, many progressives came to see government intervention as the sole method by which to reform society. The problem with this thinking was twofold. First, it led to stale ideas all based on the same basic precept. Second, it provided an apparatus that made it all too easy to roll back those reforms, should the centralized state power fall into the wrong hands.

As evidence of my first postulate, I would refer you to the shift in the labor movement from the early 1900's, built around organizing campaigns and extraparliamentary action such as general strikes and perceived as much more "radical", to the post-WWII labor movement and its increasingly direct involvement in electoral politics as the means by which to affect change.

While it is foolish to denounce any importance of electoral politics, it is equally foolish to abandon extraparliamentary action as a necessary element to provide pressure on the electoral system to FORCE change. The only way to fight the system is to stop it from working as intended, and the only way to do this is to withdraw cooperation (both active and passive) from said system.

Sadly, we who classify ourselves as progressives have been woefully absent in these efforts, outside of a few scattered groups of brave souls here and there. But if we want to affect real progressive change, then nonviolent noncooperation with the system, like the general strikes of the late 1800's and early 1900's, is the first step that we ALL can do.

With regards to my second postulate, it should be painfully clear right now what has happened with the entrenchment of state power over the past 30 years under both Republicans AND Democrats.

While I can appreciate your analysis of the Nader phenomenon, I feel that his candidacy is one that I cannot support in the least, because it is not about highlighting the "left-center split" as much as it is about a stale mode of thought that is intent on abandoning exploration of all types of action OUTSIDE of direct state intervention to solve our problems, and will only really cause more harm in the end.