Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Partisan War Syndrome by David Sirota

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 01:17 PM
Original message
Partisan War Syndrome by David Sirota
Edited on Mon Oct-17-05 01:34 PM by Mass
Sirota apparently had enough of the left wingers on DU and Kos getting all excited by people on basis that have nothing to do with their positions on issues and more with intangibles like charisma, ...

Sure, there is the obligatory snark at Kerry, but altogether this is a great read because it makes clear a lot of the problems that exist in the way some people choose who they will support.

My only issue with that is that Sirota is not describing an ideological left, but people who do not really know what they are talking about and just wants somebody who talks loud and not necessarily somebody who has the "right" positions.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2354


A disease is running rampant through the American left these days. Its symptoms are intense and increasingly pervasive in every corner of the self-proclaimed “progressive” coalition. A good name for the disease could be “Partisan War Syndrome” - and it is eating away at what remains of progressives’ ideological underpinnings and the Democratic Party’s ability to win elections over the long haul.


...


And third is Partisan War Syndrome - the misconception even in supposedly “progressive” circles that substance is irrelevant when it comes to both electoral success and, far more damaging, to actually building a serious, long-lasting political movement. This is the syndrome resulting from the shellshock of the partisan wars that marked the Clinton presidency. It is an affliction that hollowed out much of the Democratic base’s economic and national security convictions in favor of an orthodoxy that says partisan concerns and cults of personality should be the only priorities because they are supposedly the only factors that win elections. It is a disease that subverts substance for “image” and has marked the last decade of Democrats’ repeated failures at the ballot box
...

The first major symptom of Partisan War Syndrome is wild hallucinations that make progressives believe we can win elections by doing nothing, as long as the Republican Party keeps tripping over itself. You can best see this symptom each time another GOP scandal comes down the pike. The scandal hits, Republicans respond with a pathetic “I am not a crook” defense, and both Democratic politicians and grassroots activists/bloggers berate a “culture of corruption.” Yet, then these same critics largely refuse to demand concrete solutions such as public funding of elections that would actually clean up the system, and would draw a contrast between the left and the right. We see hallucinations of a victory in the next election as long as we just say nothing of substance, as we have for the last decade. But like a mirage in the desert, it never seems to materialize.
...



The next most obvious symptom of Partisan War Syndrome is delirium. Out of power for so long, the left is desperate for anyone that has the appearance of an electoral winner, no matter what the actual positions of that winner are. Other than maybe the war in Iraq or abortion, it increasingly does not seem to matter to the Democratic base where a candidate stands on much of anything, as long as that candidate has the so-called right “profile.” Intangibles like a candidate’s personal background and charisma - while certainly important - are now seen by parts of the grassroots as the penultimate asset for a candidate. In vogue today are macho males - tomorrow, who knows? As long as you are the “in” thing and put a “D” behind your name, much of the supposedly “ideological” base doesn’t really care what positions or record you have. It is as if progressives believe Democrats have been losing elections only because their candidates aren’t out of Central Casting.

...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ginnyinWI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well said
Indeed it does look like he's been reading postings here at DU. And at Kos--don't want to single out any one group by any means! And I'm sure it goes on in the smaller blogs, too. Sigh. It's as if they want the excitement of a horse-race 24/7.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. Is this his premise?
"In that race, primary voters - supposedly a representation of this “ideological” base -supported John Kerry on the basis of his personal profile as a Vietnam War veteran and his supposed “electability.” It was the most non-ideological of choices in what we were supposed to believe was the most ideological of races."

If that's what he thinks, it kind of discounts everything that comes after it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. No, its premise is that the netroots are crazy because of the way they
are treating Brown. He does not have the courage to put that upfront, so he gives us the obligatory "Kerry was seen electable", but it is clear when you read the article that he did not really care about that (he does not even goes on how Kerry was not ideological- probably because it would be difficult), and goes right to Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. He sees it with Brown, and only Brown
That's my problem with the whole piece. He's guilty of what he accuses others of.

"Again, just look at 2004 for proof of Partisan War Syndrome’s negative effects: Kerry’s “profile” and “electability” - venerated by the supposed “ideological” base as the most important asset - were made impotent by the vicious attacks on his military service, and more importantly, by the fact that his lack of an ideological rudder allowed him to be vilified as a “flip-flopper.”

"Yet, then these same critics largely refuse to demand concrete solutions such as public funding of elections that would actually clean up the system, and would draw a contrast between the left and the right."

Kerry worked with Wellstone on clean campaign law. Sirota has to know that. How can he say Kerry has no ideological rudder when they were an early supporter of one of the things he claims we don't have an agenda on. Then he says this about Brown:

"Because nobody - not even the critics - disputes that Brown has been one of the most effective, successful, team playing, outspoken and articulate heroes for the progressive ideological movement in Congress for more than a decade, while Hackett has no voting record on any issue at all. Even on his signature issue, Iraq, Hackett never supported withdrawing troops. An activist base motivated by ideology would have rejoiced that one of their ideological brethren, Brown, was running for higher office..."

But doesn't see the activist base should have similarly rejoiced when Kerry ran for higher office?

He makes no sense. He is what he is writing about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. when has Sirota ever made sense?
he loves to come up with a premise and then just kind of make things up to fit it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Funny, I took this as a reply to Senator Obama's post on Kos
http://obama.senate.gov/blog/050930-tone_truth_and_the_democratic_party/index.html#more

Sen. Obama proceeds to lecture the netrrots or grassroots or whatever the hell we are calling rank and file these days about being too ideological and busting the balls of anyone who steps out of line on any one vote.

Compare and contrast. According to Sirota, we have no roots and no ideology of note. We sway in the wind like reeds at a stream. According to Sen. Obama we are cannibals and eat our own at the first sign of ideological independence.

And the struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party marches on. (It was ever thus.) Pass the popcorn, I want a front-row seat for this one. (My money's on Obama, btw. Sirota has been a bit too self-rightwous for me lately.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-18-05 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. That's what's sad. It's almost a good premise
But it's almost an argument for ideological purity. I didn't like his take on Kerry at all. It was the old "we only picked him because he was supposed to be 'electable'" crap.

Some interesting thoughts in there, but an awful lot of misrepresentation as well.

I wonder who Sirota wanted, Kucinich?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-18-05 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Thats what's kind of odd.
Sirota worked for Brian Schweitzer for Gov of Montana and claimes that Dems can win in Red States by 'adapting' their views to local concerns. Schweitzer is a regular guy who hunts, fished, and does regular Montana guy stuff. (Whatever that is.) Sirota hopes to promote Schweitzer even further on the American political stage. We shall see if ideological purity follows or the urge to pander to Red State voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-18-05 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. it is totally an argument for ideological purity
Edited on Tue Oct-18-05 10:23 PM by paulk
and it's david sirota's ideology, which, even though he hides it well, is on the extreme left of the party. He would purge the centrists/moderates if he could. it's between the lines of everything he writes.

he's a leader of the circular firing squad, he trashes Democrats far more in his writings than Republicans.

have I mentioned that I pretty much despise him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-18-05 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. That's what I found too
He trashed almost everyone but Dennis and Nader. Clark, Hackett, Kerry, Clinton (both of them), Dean alittle bit... he hardly missed anyone.

I don't like him much either after that. Hack indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
7. Oh good grief
I just ranted about that on my blog! How weird.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC