Is the polarization of DU consistent with anyone's definition of "liberal"?

[Atticus]

I'm not acknowledging the trolls' contribution to this polarization. Like the poor, trolls will always be with us.

I'm talking about, and to, the vast majority of those who post or lurk here and who, I believe, are well-meaning people from both fringes of the Democratic Party and every gradient in between. And, by "liberal", I intend to include YOUR definition of that term. I will even countenance the substitution of "progressive" if you prefer that.

I'm old enough not to give a damn about being proven wrong about something or even making a total fool out of myself. Everyone wears those hats from time to time unless they're hiding from life. So, let me say that, when I use the word "liberal", I mean that term to be somewhat synonymous with words like "kind", "tolerant", "laid-back", "concerned", "honest" and "happy". That's not an all-inclusive list, but it serves for now.

And, yes, it is a fine line we try to walk: we need to be tolerant and kind enough to allow others to be different and hold differing opinions, but still be courageous and resolute enough to get angry and take action when others' differing opinions amount to a desire to eliminate our kind or force us to adopt their concept of morality or their way of living.

I don't think many at DU are in that second category that should truly anger us.

Most here want true health care reform. Most(I think) would prefer single payer, but most would also accept a "robust public option".
The other side wants to kill HCR and continue funding the corporate citizens' purchase of our government.

Most here support a woman's right to choose her own reproductive health alternatives.
The other side want the government to pre-empt such decisions because they are too important to be left to women.

Most here believe who and how a person loves is a personal and very private decision in which the government should have no say.
The other side would limit personal and sexual relationships to those approved by their religion and many would criminalize
any alternatives.

Most here believe our planet is in peril because of man's activities and favor some form of universal sacrifice in order to reverse what a broad scientific consensus terms "global climate change".
The other side thinks climate change is a "massive hoax" and that the recent snow storms "totally disprove" "Al Gore's nonsense".

Most here believe government should provide decent jobs for all those willing and able to work (which we believe is damn near everyone).
The other side believes government should keep wages low and the working class under control so that businesses can
prosper.

That's enough. Likely no two DU'ers would agree on everything, but what we agree about FAR ourweighs the sum total of our differences. We should find ways to unite against "the other side" rather than spend our time pissing on each other's shoes about variations in our liberal world-view.


Have a good one---and, y'all play nice now, hear?

[Winterblues]

1. I don't see the polarization you referred to.

I think people here are not anywhere near as dogmatic as our counterparts in the Republican Party. We have a very wide area of beliefs and most if not all are somewhat tolerated.

[igfoth]

2. If one is not Pro Choice

Then you are in no way shape or form a liberal and if it were up to me they would not be welcome in the Dem Party.

[Joanne98]

3. More "be weak" advice!

[Atticus]

7. Of all the posts so far, most of which are unfavorable, I'm responding to yours

because, in the past (and in the future, I'm sure)I have generally agreed with most of what you had to say.

I genuinely do not see how you believe my post to be encouraging others to "be weak." Surely you considered my urging that we be "resolute enough to get angry and take action when others' differing opinions amount to a desire to eliminate our kind or force us to adopt their concept of morality or their way of living."

Being an agressive and outspoken liberal has come close to costing me a great job and, on several occasions, has nearly gotten me hospitalized. I have no way of proving that to you, but it is, nonetheless, true.

I am saddened by the joy some of our internecine bloodletting must provide to our enemies. I would agree there are exceptions, but there are only a small handful of these, even in Congress, that I could not MAKE myself work with in order to implement some part of what I believe is DU's shared "wish list".

I'm certainly not suggesting we remain silent about our disagreements with each other. I'm simply suggesting we draw as few "lines in the sand" between Democrats as possible. Some would call others "not Democrats" for disagreeing on ONE issue that they hold dear. That has already happened in this thread.

I'll continue to look for your intelligent and passionate posts.

[G_j]

4. the peace movement is pretty well nonexistant here

I guess peace isn't a popular liberal value this year..

[Hell Hath No Fury]

6. When a "D" kills people with drones --

and plays war in other countries that is OK, you silly wabbit! :eyes:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

5. The problem we are seeing is that --

there are a whole lot of people here who are NOT liberal by most (including your own) definitions. What you describe was the DU of pre-2004. That is where I see the divide here. How can you "unite agsint the other side" when that "other side" is squatting in our own tent?? :shrug:

[Atticus]

8. Checking back in after several hours. My OP, which tried to encourage those who post here

to just be a little more tolerant of fellow libs/Dems/progressives has gotten six responses, all of which, as I understand them, say "STFU---we insist on savaging each other!"

OK. I guess I learned something.

Peace, all.

[Bobbie Jo]

9. I rec'd your thread.

...and appreciate your reasoned post. I couldn't agree more.

[Atticus]

10. Thank you! Kinda lonely, ain't it? nt