It's time to stop misconstruing what the debate on DU is about.

[Unvanguard]

It's obvious to all of us here that there are rather significant differences in opinion on DU with respect to the Democrats in Congress and the White House. The actual divisions are not always neat--ultimately most of us do (and if we don't, can and should) have more nuanced opinions than simply categorically "pro" or "anti"--but it is no mystery that there is a division, and that there is overlap across many policy areas in how this division works out.

At least by DU standards, I'm pretty solidly on the "pro" side: I strongly approve of President Obama, I've supported nearly all of his policy initiatives at least domestically (education is probably the main exception), and I think most--though certainly not all--of the criticisms of him from the left are misconceived. My support for Nancy Pelosi is even less equivocal; I just love her. Harry Reid is a bit of a different story, but we don't have to get into that; the important thing is, fundamentally, I think the Democratic leadership is doing basically a good job under the circumstances, I think it should be supported strongly by the Democratic base both before and prior to elections, and I think that the corruption and incompetence of the party is much overestimated on both sides of the political spectrum.

That's not the point of this thread, though. This is not a paean to the wonders of Obama. This is a plea to people to stop making two particular claims characterizing this debate that I think are deeply incorrect and unfair.

1. The claim that the division on DU maps neatly onto a division between centrists and liberals/progressives/leftists/whatever. Now, in fairness this is going to be true for some people: a person who thinks the health care reform bill is actually the optimal point for health care policy, and that a public option was a dangerous step toward government takeover, is going to have a whole lot less reason to be dissatisfied with health care reform than a person who supports a robust public option or single-payer. But it is not true for everyone, and it is not true, I think, for the vast majority of strong Obama supporters on DU (how many people didn't support a public option here?). The reason is that the reasoning does not work in the other direction: for instance, there is no inconsistency in a vehement supporter of single-payer and nonetheless thinking that the health care reform bill was the best we were going to get under the circumstances and a substantial step forward. You might think this view is incorrect--you might argue that the Democrats did not try hard enough because of their political cowardice or their connections to the health insurance industry, or that the bill is so terrible that it is even worse than the status quo. But the contrary view is neither impossible nor obviously irrational.

The same thing is true more broadly. It is possible even to be a genuine radical and nonetheless strongly support the Obama Administration and the Democratic leadership under the present circumstances. I should know, given as how that's exactly the position I'm in. For at least some of us, we are less disappointed by Obama than others because we did not expect more, and because we are used to getting a whole lot less than we want: we reconciled ourselves to these things a long time ago, knowing that they were not likely to change any time soon. Disagree with us if you like, but do not accuse us of being too right-wing for not agreeing with your assessment of the political circumstances. I defy anyone here to argue successfully that they are to the left of me. It is not impossible but it is very difficult.

2. The claim that the division on DU is rooted in a division between people who support loyalty to particular politicians over loyalty to ideology and people who support loyalty to ideology over loyalty to particular politicians. The simple fact of the matter is that, by and large, those of us who defend Obama and the Democratic leadership from criticism from the left do not believe that supporting Obama and the Democrats is an end in itself: rather, we think that the criticisms are incorrect or exaggerated, and/or that the best way to pursue the ideological ends we share with most of the critics is to support Obama and the Democrats. Again, you may disagree with our assessment of the political situation. But there is nothing inconsistent with left-wing values in being of this view. It is not selling out to choose what is in our minds the best of imperfect alternatives. It is just trying to do as much as we can in a world that does not suit our ideological preferences.

I have singled out these two claims because I think they are not only wrong, but unfair and insulting. Furthermore, I think they contribute to the incivility that pervades DU. People do not like being accused of arguing in bad faith, or being told that they are not "real" progressives, or are racist or sexist or homophobic or pro-corporate power, for not sharing someone else's assessment of the political situation. They are likely to respond angrily, and understandably so. I do not mean to claim by this that the incivility on DU is somehow the fault of one side: obviously, this is not the case. There are respects in which people on the other side, too, contribute to this incivility: for instance, when it is suggested that people disappointed by the failure to achieve affordable quality health care for all, or equality for gays and lesbians, are whining over trivialities, as if basic matters of social justice and civil rights can legitimately be brushed aside so easily. But I think, in general, if people stopped making unfair assumptions about people they disagree with, and stopped suggesting without clear-cut evidence that their opponents are arguing in bad faith, it would go a long way.

Part of being an intellectually honest person is thinking seriously about an opponent's argument rather than caricaturing or otherwise distorting it. When we reduce difficult political questions to simplistic binaries--"Either you agree with this particular criticism of Obama, or you are a corporatist DLC Democrat who has abandoned progressive values", or for that matter "Either you support Obama 100% or you are a crazy whiner who doesn't understand politics"--we are not just being unfair to others, but we are degrading our own thinking. We are failing to appreciate that the world is not as simple as we would like it to be, that the possible views on these issues are multifarious and open to considerable nuance, and that our opponents might have good reasons for believing what they do--or that even (gasp!) they might sometimes be right. This is a disservice to ourselves, to the people with whom we engage in discussion, and to the DU community. We--all of us, on both/all sides--should stop it.

We won't, of course. We are only human. But we should at least try harder.

[JuniperLea]

1. "rather than caricaturing or otherwise distorting it"

I see so much conversation wasted on this one point... step two in this mode is the ever-popular straw-man.

Edited to say... Great OP! I have to run right now, but I'm very anxious to see how this thread pans out;) I will be back!

[Scuba]

2. Thanks for your thoughtful post...

...I'm a big critic - and supporter - of President Obama. Depends on with whom I'm conversing.

With a generally 'liberal-minded' friend or group, I'm going to be critical, and point out how Obama should be further left.

With right-wingers I defend the President, and point out what he has achieved. The healthcare debate is a great example.

[blondeatlast]

4. I think you've hit on a salient point that we often miss. Outside of DU,

many of us realize we could be in a lot worse shape.

But here, we see what remains to be done and get frustrated. My social circle includes lots of active McCain supporters (ugh, but I can't avoid them). That keeps DU in perspective for me.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[blondeatlast]

5. I don't want the world to see DU as a "unified voice." I think spirited but reasoned debate

is DU's strongest asset.

[damntexdem]

21. Hell, I can't even agree with myself on Obama -- I sure don't expect to agree with other DUers.

So, I expect, and DEMAND, spirited, reasoned debate here.

But I DO get really upset with two types of DU posts:
1) total attack pieces on Obama et al.; and
2) total defenses of Obama et al.

[blondeatlast]

29. Exactly. I take pride in knowing both of the extremes don't want me at their

cafeteria table!

[treestar]

8. That's unfair, because they aren't trying for a unified voice

but are trying to limit it to people who have some appreciation for the Democrats - its in the rules that if you want other candidates, use other bandwidth. I don't want to come here to run into people who are always trashing the Democrats just like the freepers do, even if for different reasons.

[watrwefitinfor]

6. I would love to have an idea how many DUers fall

into your first category, as expounded so well in your second paragraph of that point. It fits my situation and outlook regarding Obamba exactly, and I am thrilled to find someone else on DU with a similar world view.

1...It is possible even to be a genuine radical and nonetheless strongly support the Obama Administration and the Democratic leadership under the present circumstances. I should know, given as how that's exactly the position I'm in. For at least some of us, we are less disappointed by Obama than others because we did not expect more, and because we are used to getting a whole lot less than we want: we reconciled ourselves to these things a long time ago, knowing that they were not likely to change any time soon. Disagree with us if you like, but do not accuse us of being too right-wing for not agreeing with your assessment of the political circumstances.

Wat

[Unvanguard]

11. I've noticed a few of us around.

And a few elsewhere, off DU. I think a lot of radicals were sufficiently scared by what the Bush Administration did that they were jolted into stronger support for the Democrats; for all of Clinton's centrism, living under actual Republican rule made it quite clear which was preferable. And a lot of us, of course, have been taking this position for a very long time.

Part of my problem with the claims made in the OP is that, by constructing an ideological map where being left-wing is synonymous with being a harsher critic of Obama, discussion of genuinely radical proposals and ideas is marginalized: we are arguing so much about whether Obama should have done this or that rather than about what our ultimate ends should be as the Left in the United States. Too strong a focus on the minutiae of current events has never been particularly good for solid theoretical frameworks.

[starroute]

35. Half of me agrees with you and the other half has doubts

My radical side comes from my mother. She pretty much got reconciled to the Democratic Party after Roosevelt was elected, but her heart was always somewhere further left. I learned from her that it's a good idea to support Democrats in order to stave off the specter of McCarthyism while you work for something better. That's the side that agrees with you completely.

My father was more of a centrist -- at least by the standards of the Upper West Side of Manhattan in the 1940's and 50's -- and far more genuinely committed to the Democratic Party. But he was a Reform Democrat. He spent years battling Tammany Hall, and in 1948 he refused to vote for Truman because Truman had come out of the Prendergast Machine in Missouri. (He cast a protest vote for Norman Thomas instead, where my mother cast a more serious vote for Henry Wallace.)

And what I learned from my father is that the Democratic Party constantly needs a little ass-kicking, because otherwise it goes slack and corrupt -- and that the best way to do this is to support good Democratic candidates and withhold your support from the stinkers.

So the radical side of me may be perfectly happy supporting any candidate who can help maintain a Democratic majority in Congress -- but the side that comes from my father, the loyal Democrat, cringes at the very notion.

[CTyankee]

41. I agree with your father's idea: a little ass kicking is needed.

We'll never get anywhere by just all agreeing with each other on everything. We're the party with new ideas and that means...well, new ideas...surprise! Who knew?

But we'll also never get anywhere just by hurling epithets at each other, name calling and poutrage. Those just put sand in the gears of our thinking, at a time when we need really hard thinking about the brutal issues facing us on just about every front.

I think the admin folks have done what reasonable people do when a crossroads has been reached: lay down some ground rules that enhance debate without gunking up the engine.

Personally, I don't have an issue with what the admin has done. I don't have any personal issues with other DU members. The ones I've really had any problems with have been TS'd, so that's fine. And that isn't many because I just don't get bogged down here. I come here for information and collegiality of thought, but I am not upset if someone disagrees with me...I just put forth my views...

[Unvanguard]

45. Well, I think machine politics present substantially different issues

because, especially on the local level, blatant corruption can be more pressing than policy views more in alignment with one's own.

I don't think this is the case on the national level today, though. The Democrats are not noticeably more corrupt than the Republicans, and neither is really as corrupt as it sometimes seems: partisanship, ideology, and constituent support are still the overwhelming determinants of the issue stances of Congresspeople.

It is a defensible view that a decline in support from the left might make the Democrats more responsive to our policy views, but it is also a defensible view that the Democrats being attacked from both the left and the right will put them in an impossible political position. My OP probably makes clear which side I am on as far as that goes.

[rucky]

36. I'll check in.

I've explained it a few times when I've been attacked, but haven't had much luck getting my point across without incurring further beatings.

[treestar]

7. The assessment of the political circumstances

is exactly it. I would like single payer, but I get that the country's system does not get it passed, or it would have passed.

I thought the public option would have been great, but we just can't get it with that Senate. That's the way it is and it seems unreasonable to me to demand what cannot be, call people names when they deal with that reality by being happy with what we did get.

[Laelth]

9. First, let me thank you for a particularly thoughtful post. Well done.

In responding, let me focus on claim #2, for I am one of the principal proponents of that claim. I see the tension here as, principally, a conflict between those who value ideology over party and those who value party over ideology. That you are insulted by this characterization gives me pause. I can imagine how my lumping you in the party over ideology camp might, in effect, call into question your ideology. You would be right to feel that way. It is, I suppose, am implicit attack.

Most of us see "the Party" as a means to an end. The problem that we may be encountering is that some of us believe that the ends do not justify the means. My instinct is to criticize specific Democrats and to criticize the Democratic Party when their means are conservative policy. I begin to doubt that those politicians and the Party have the same ends in mind that I do. In fact, when Democrats enact conservative legislation, I am compelled to consider that we do not share the same ends. Posters who defend the Democrats that enact conservative policy are in the same boat. I question whether we are truly allies. If a given poster's ideology is liberal, I wonder, why wouldn't they be angry and highly critical of a particular policy, enacted by Democrats, that does not lead to liberal ends?

I suppose the answer to that question is that many believe the Democratic Party is the only vehicle we have to achieve any kind of liberal end. As such, the Party should be forgiven for enacting conservative policy, because attacking the Party merely weakens our chances of ever achieving any liberal ends.

Perhaps, but some of us just can't go there. To some of us, the ends do not justify the means. I can not forgive Democrats for enacting conservative policy. I can not be quiet about it merely because I don't want to hurt the Party. I am compelled to resist the Party's conservative impulses, whenever and wherever they appear. If the means is the Democratic Party, I will criticize it when it acts contrary to my principles because I believe that the ends do not justify the means.

To others, the ends are what matter, and they defend the Party, even when it is wrong, because the Party remains the best chance we have of achieving liberal ends. But, as I said, some of us just can't go there. I hope you understand.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Unvanguard]

13. Whatever the DU rules, I don't mind being insulted if the claim is true.

So I don't want to give you pause if you think it is correct.

I think the argument you make, though, shows why it is not correct. You construct the dispute here as essentially a question of whether or not the ends justify the means: one side thinks that the Democratic Party should stand on principle and support left-wing policy unflinchingly, and the other is okay with compromises if they are necessary for success. But if that's correct, then it's not actually the case that the disagreement is about ideology, that is, about the worthiness of left-wing ends: both you and your opposition agree that left-wing ends are in fact worthy. The difference is about means. And that's exactly what I'm saying: whether our dispute is tactical or philosophical, it is ultimately means-focused, and that is why it is unfair to accuse people of not sharing left-wing ends.

[NJmaverick]

14. That is pretty much it, the framing of the issue

some want to frame it as party vs ideology, while in fact it would be more accurately framed as pragmatism vs idealism

[Laelth]

32. Many of us feel that holding Democrats' feet to the fire is very pragmatic.

I find your framing of this issue to be very insulting.

:dem:

-Laelth

[NJmaverick]

34. You find this framing "insulting"?

If you feel that framing is insulting, how do you think those you label as putting party above ideology feel? Seems to me if one is going to be insulted, yours would be the more insulting framing.

[Laelth]

31. I hear you.

And I admitted above that my framing of the issue probably does cause you some discomfort, and I understand why. It is, implicitly, an attack on your ideology to be lumped into the Party-first crowd.

And it may be unfair. But how would I know? I can't know what's in your heart. How do I know that you're not a freeper troll? If I see you (or anyone else) defending conservative policy or Democrats who enact conservative policy, I am bound to be suspicious. I can't just trust that people share my goals because they claim to be Democrats. Alvin Greene claims to be a Democrat, but that's not going to cause me to cut him any slack.

All we can judge people by, here, is by what they say and what they do. If what you say and what you do is contrary to my principles and ideology, I will be tempted to react negatively. And yes, if you value Party above ideology, I will (unfairly or not) question your ideology if the Party or the politician you are defending is acting like a conservative.

In this environment, without knowing what's in your heart, there's no other option.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Unvanguard]

37. That's not true, though.

The other option is being charitable in your assumptions rather than accusatory--or, if you can't bring yourself to do that, at least not leaping to unnecessary conclusions.

The fact that you do not know what is in my heart should make you more cautious of accusing me of being a conservative, not less--just as the fact that I do not know what is in your head should make me more cautious of accusing you of being an unrealistic whiner, not less.

Part of civility and mutual respect is trying to think the best of your opponents rather than the worst. I think this has declined a lot on DU lately. Part of the point of my OP is that we should try to stop this: it is not only insulting, but, like I said, it degrades our own capacity to be reasonable. If our opponents are all crazy, then there is never any reason to question our own beliefs.

[ecstatic]

15. "some of us just can't go there"

Yet, if Palin or Bachmann or Huckabee takes control in 2012, you would be upset, correct? I just don't get that view. Why would you think that it's better for us to be fractured so the GOP can slip in to power again?

[Laelth]

20. I don't think it's likely that the Republicans will win.

I doubt they will pick up more than a few seats in 2010. I think it more likely that we will pick up seats. I don't think there's much of a chance that Obama will be defeated in 2012, and if he is defeated, I think it will be because he governed as a conservative.

I think that vicious attacks on both the Party and on its politicians, when they enact conservative policy, is a better means of achieving liberal ends. Besides, it lets me sleep at night. I couldn't stand the hypocrisy of publicly supporting people and policies that hurt the interests of working people.

:dem:

-Laelth

[ecstatic]

22. So you're hoping that those of us who don't share your deep morals and convictions

will save you from the GOP with our votes? Interesting.

[Tailormyst]

28. Comprehension fail

[Laelth]

33. I think that Democrats should act like Democrats if they want to win.

But I also think that the Republicans are so crazy that the Democrats will win despite the fact that they're acting like Republicans.

:dem:

-Laelth

[NJmaverick]

10. Very well said and I agree whole heartedly with the views you have expressed

[H2O Man]

12. While there are some

areas that I do not agree with you on, even in these, I respect the way that you express your opinion. Very well done. Thanks, and recommended.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[blondeatlast]

17. No, it violated a very specific rule--that of not calling out members or moderators.

I alerted it.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[blondeatlast]

27. Frame it how you want. You did call out the mods. But if it makes you feel better,

:nopity:

[librechik]

18. When I first joined up back in 2001, I thought DU was for lefties who can still call themselves Dems

As opposed to, say, Democrats.com for example. They are right down the middle.

And DU was a progressive haven at first.

But liberals are, well, liberal. Gradually, as DU grew enormous, more diverse viewpoints filtered in, were accepted, and ultimately, IMO, became dominant. Now you have to be on your toes if you are too far to the left, because a swarm of loyal "centrists" will take you down if you say anything too far to the left. There simply aren't as many lefties here as there were in the beginning. I'm sure the majority of DUers are Democrats. They just don't fit the profile of my experience in "The Underground" (the vast counterculture which came to prominence in the 60s and 70s, and worked in a radical fashion against the mainstream)like most DUers did in the early years.

DU has become The Mainstream, and those who are still in the radical underground philosophically are in the minority here. C'est la vie.

To me DU circa 2010 is just a broad-based discussion forum which draws its form from the posts. It's not a family member, a friend, or even a social setting, (although I'm sure many use it for that.) I have just accepted the moderator changes over the years with a shrug of the shoulders, and gone elsewhere when I want opinions that are more to the left. I think it's kinda sad and funny at the same time that folks get in such a tizzy over somebody else's (Skinner and Elad) place of beesxax. I enjoy the posts that support my biases and revile the posts which disagree with me, as usual. It's just part of the mainstream discourse. I don't expect it to be radical and spark a revolution (anymore) It's just a semi-fun place to bitch and moan and celebrate the tiny victories--if you watch your ps and qs. Sad, when HOWLING used to be the norm, but there it is--no more.

Nowadays, (unlike, say 2001 or 2004) I try to keep my radical views to myself. The US is looking to be a more and more oppressive oligarchy--and DU is just a reflection of our entire society. It's not just Obama continuing the torture and secrecy policies of the Bushies. I'm taking my cue from the crackdowns here, the most liberal spot on the planet, supposedly. Radicals are not popular among Dems, unlike Republicans. If you get TSed, sad day for you. I mean to avoid that, if possible, since at first glance the new rules seem to make everything out of bounds. DU, you are hilarious. I'm going to swim to the surface and take a few breaths and look around--before I plunge in too deep.

So cheers, DU--let me use a great word from the 80s to describe this current tumult: WHATEVER...

[walldude]

26. .

:yourock:

[Tailormyst]

19. I would like to see people try harder also.

At least by DU standards, I'm pretty solidly on the "pro" side: I strongly approve of President Obama, I've supported nearly all of his policy initiatives at least domestically (education is probably the main exception), and I think most--though certainly not all--of the criticisms of him from the left are misconceived. My support for Nancy Pelosi is even less equivocal; I just love her. Harry Reid is a bit of a different story, but we don't have to get into that; the important thing is, fundamentally, I think the Democratic leadership is doing basically a good job under the circumstances, I think it should be supported strongly by the Democratic base both before and prior to elections, and I think that the corruption and incompetence of the party is much overestimated on both sides of the political spectrum.

I am not happy with our Presidents performance. I find him moving more and more to the right every day. I think that the party as a whole in DC is doing very little to support our values and doing a great deal to increase their own power and finances.

That's not the point of this thread, though. This is not a paean to the wonders of Obama. This is a plea to people to stop making two particular claims characterizing this debate that I think are deeply incorrect and unfair.

Okay- I will read your two claims of other peoples claims.

1. The claim that the division on DU maps neatly onto a division between centrists and liberals/progressives/leftists/whatever. Now, in fairness this is going to be true for some people: a person who thinks the health care reform bill is actually the optimal point for health care policy, and that a public option was a dangerous step toward government takeover, is going to have a whole lot less reason to be dissatisfied with health care reform than a person who supports a robust public option or single-payer. But it is not true for everyone, and it is not true, I think, for the vast majority of strong Obama supporters on DU (how many people didn't support a public option here?). The reason is that the reasoning does not work in the other direction: for instance, there is no inconsistency in a vehement supporter of single-payer and nonetheless thinking that the health care reform bill was the best we were going to get under the circumstances and a substantial step forward. You might think this view is incorrect--you might argue that the Democrats did not try hard enough because of their political cowardice or their connections to the health insurance industry, or that the bill is so terrible that it is even worse than the status quo. But the contrary view is neither impossible nor obviously irrational.

I think there are two, fairly easy to spot, schools of thought. Both feel they are correct. Neither understands the other's point of view. Both sides lose patience with the other. Both sides behave badly. I would like to add something else here to further reasoned debate with you, but unfortunately, due to the rules, I cannot.

The same thing is true more broadly. It is possible even to be a genuine radical and nonetheless strongly support the Obama Administration and the Democratic leadership under the present circumstances. I should know, given as how that's exactly the position I'm in. For at least some of us, we are less disappointed by Obama than others because we did not expect more, and because we are used to getting a whole lot less than we want: we reconciled ourselves to these things a long time ago, knowing that they were not likely to change any time soon. Disagree with us if you like, but do not accuse us of being too right-wing for not agreeing with your assessment of the political circumstances. I defy anyone here to argue successfully that they are to the left of me. It is not impossible but it is very difficult.

I disagree with you that anyone considered a "radical left" would strongly support this administration. This is an opinion. My opinion. Just because you wish to be called such, does not automatically make it so. You can disagree and claim to be one and that would be your opinion and I will still be of the opinion that you are not. I don't believe this makes you a bad person, just a person who differs from me ideologically.

2. The claim that the division on DU is rooted in a division between people who support loyalty to particular politicians over loyalty to ideology and people who support loyalty to ideology over loyalty to particular politicians. The simple fact of the matter is that, by and large, those of us who defend Obama and the Democratic leadership from criticism from the left do not believe that supporting Obama and the Democrats is an end in itself: rather, we think that the criticisms are incorrect or exaggerated, and/or that the best way to pursue the ideological ends we share with most of the critics is to support Obama and the Democrats. Again, you may disagree with our assessment of the political situation. But there is nothing inconsistent with left-wing values in being of this view. It is not selling out to choose what is in our minds the best of imperfect alternatives. It is just trying to do as much as we can in a world that does not suit our ideological preferences.

I would like further reasoned debate with you on this matter, but unfortunately, due to the rules, I cannot. All I can say is that I disagree with your paragraph. Therein lies the biggest difference.

I have singled out these two claims because I think they are not only wrong, but unfair and insulting. Furthermore, I think they contribute to the incivility that pervades DU. People do not like being accused of arguing in bad faith, or being told that they are not "real" progressives, or are racist or sexist or homophobic or pro-corporate power, for not sharing someone else's assessment of the political situation. They are likely to respond angrily, and understandably so. I do not mean to claim by this that the incivility on DU is somehow the fault of one side: obviously, this is not the case. There are respects in which people on the other side, too, contribute to this incivility: for instance, when it is suggested that people disappointed by the failure to achieve affordable quality health care for all, or equality for gays and lesbians, are whining over trivialities, as if basic matters of social justice and civil rights can legitimately be brushed aside so easily. But I think, in general, if people stopped making unfair assumptions about people they disagree with, and stopped suggesting without clear-cut evidence that their opponents are arguing in bad faith, it would go a long way.

I agree that both sides need to behave more civilly. I would like to expand on my thoughts, but I cannot, without breaking a rules.

Part of being an intellectually honest person is thinking seriously about an opponent's argument rather than caricaturing or otherwise distorting it. When we reduce difficult political questions to simplistic binaries--"Either you agree with this particular criticism of Obama, or you are a corporatist DLC Democrat who has abandoned progressive values", or for that matter "Either you support Obama 100% or you are a crazy whiner who doesn't understand politics"--we are not just being unfair to others, but we are degrading our own thinking. We are failing to appreciate that the world is not as simple as we would like it to be, that the possible views on these issues are multifarious and open to considerable nuance, and that our opponents might have good reasons for believing what they do--or that even (gasp!) they might sometimes be right. This is a disservice to ourselves, to the people with whom we engage in discussion, and to the DU community. We--all of us, on both/all sides--should stop it.

I agree that both sides need to behave more civilly. I would like to expand on my thoughts, but I cannot, without breaking a rules. I wish I could post an OP like you did, discussing my feelings civilly and calmly, but I cannot, without breaking the rules. I can't even explain to you what rules I would be breaking without breaking the rules or give you examples without breaking the rules. It is indeed frustrating.

We won't, of course. We are only human. But we should at least try harder.

I would like to see people try harder also.

[Unvanguard]

30. I will try my best to respond to this.

Though obviously I cannot respond to arguments you cannot make. (I am ambivalent, at best, about the new rules for this exact reason: I would accept a decline in civility to avoid a chilling effect on people's capacity to express policy views. Maybe, along with being more civil, we need to be more thick-skinned. I'm not going to encourage you to break the rules, people should respect what the administrators have decided, but for what it's worth I only ever alert on posts that are bigoted--people have called me, and people who agree with me, all kinds of things on here and I don't ever recall alerting on them over it.)

"I disagree with you that anyone considered a "radical left" would strongly support this administration. This is an opinion. My opinion. Just because you wish to be called such, does not automatically make it so. You can disagree and claim to be one and that would be your opinion and I will still be of the opinion that you are not. I don't believe this makes you a bad person, just a person who differs from me ideologically."

I accept that this is your opinion. I think, however, that this is mistaken. It's hard for me to respond to this effectively without a little more of a specific argument, but I will make an attempt by elaborating a bit on my view.

The reason for this seeming tension in my view is rooted in the simple recognition that the overwhelming, vast majority of people in this country do not agree with me. Proposals like the general socialization of the means of production--which was the quintessential "leftist" stance for a long time--simply do not have much popular currency. People who voice support for socialism, which a not-insignificant minority (though only a minority, and decisively so) do, almost invariably mean something far more moderate, some combination of Keynesianism and the welfare state, not a basic challenge to the capitalist system of ownership and the state violence that underlies it. The kinds of things that inspire mass political participation on the left are more "reformist" goals: health care reform, jobs bills, greater financial regulation, and other issues that may not undermine the capitalist state but nonetheless make a concrete difference in people's lives.

So I do not see advocating for the immediate socialist transformation of society--however much I might desire it--as a viable political strategy. It is not going to accomplish anything in that direction; it is only going to expend my resources and marginalize me from the political discourses where actual improvements are made. My approach, rather than trying futilely to lead the people out of the wilderness, is to find those issues where there is enough public support and political representation to actually win--inevitably moderate, reformist proposals--and support the side that will make things better rather than make things worse. I am not naive; only at my most optimistic, which is a pretty rare mood of mine, do I think that this will somehow gradually lead to the kind of society I would like to see. The realities of inertia in democratic capitalist societies indicate otherwise. But I do not expect that the kind of society I like to see will ever be politically viable, and if it ever is, it will not be so through my effort, but through other social forces--economic or ecological catastrophe, perhaps, for which it would be perverse to hope. As such, I prefer to work to achieve what justice and freedom can be achieved within the system, as long as that system presents no indication of being vulnerable to a more fundamental challenge.

Now, you might well disagree with all of this: a great many radicals do. But I don't think it is so irrational as to imply that I can only believe it if my left-wing radicalism is in bad faith. That is several steps beyond being merely wrong; it is possible to disagree on tactics without disagreeing on ends. That is my central point.

[Tailormyst]

38. I agree whole-heartedly with your last line

Even though we may want the same things in the long run, I believe we are miles away on how to get there and what to do in the mean time. We have very different opinions. It's frustrating as hell to sit here deleting my thoughts over and over because although I believe they are a matter of truth, and many others feel they are a matter of truth, they are not allowed. You could post your feelings of frustration and anger in your OP, but many of us cannot. Instead I sit here posting cryptic sentences rather then just speaking plainly.

Anyway- I want to say thank you. Even though we disagree on so much, the conversation was able to stay calm and civil, and I enjoy that.

[okie]

48. But when would it be the right time...

...to voice a radical critique of the capitalist structure? First, I understand your point about 'viable political strategy'. You're right, there are not many Americans who are receptive to talk of a new economic system. Of course there are many reasons for this (some quite complicated, some having to do with serious defeats the left faced in the 70s and 80s), but undoubtedly this is at least partly because so many Americans on the left refuse to seriously engage with radical ideas. Maybe the system seems so impenetrable because it's not being challenged.

As a socialist, I think we should be sharply critical of things like the New Deal and Western European-style 'social democracy', but I'm willing to accept that they improved lives to some degree. But we never would have seen Social Security, or Britain's National Health Service if the system had not been challenged by influential, very radical elements within the labor movement. I think it's wrong to expect similar reforms when we're told the best we can muster is 'critical support' (or some similar phrase) for President Obama. The time for a radical critique or vision is now. The left has to offer something in this period when we're really seeing the stark realities of our economic system. Things getting worse (or some kind of ecological catastrophe) is more likely to benefit the right than the left.

[Unvanguard]

51. I agree with much of what you say, but my pessimistic answer is "There is no real alternative."

To put it even more directly, there may never be a right time.

You're right: European social democracy evolved in large part because there was a substantial anti-capitalist movement, one that had to be brought into that system, and by virtue of that fact the social reforms enacted were more substantial and systematic than anything we have really seen in the US, which never had that kind of socialist movement. But if we did not have a socialist movement at the time when countries in Western Europe did, why should we believe that we will be able to generate one now, at a time when whatever genuine socialism remains in the European left is dying out?

In a strange, ironic way, traditional American moderate left liberalism is better able to cope with the present political climate than the European Left: devoid of its original principles in this neoliberal era, the European social democratic parties are somewhat adrift in confusion. The Democrats, however, having always been essentially a party committed to free-market capitalism, long ago articulated a program of social reform that was basically compatible with that system: they are therefore on better foundations, which is why Obama had so much success at a time when the European left was faltering everywhere.

The "stark realities of our economic system" that you refer to are actually a basic confirmation of my pessimistic point: even despite the financial crisis, which should have made so abundantly clear the way our economic system works for the advantage of the few at the expense of the many, the majority of Americans still balk at the words "socialism" and "government takeover": they are just not inclined to accept a critique that goes beyond, at most, populist reformist measures (and they have enough loss aversion that they can be brought to oppose even those).

Edit: To put it simply, mass democratic politics with left-wing parties, coupled with economic growth, has meant that the sort of material injustice and immiseration that was supposed to underly a socialist transformation of society has instead been ameliorated--not to the point that inequality and injustice are gone, obviously, but to the point that political inertia and loss aversion make radical change very difficult. We can't get around this just by having better ideas and arguments: we have had good ideas and arguments for a very long time, but it has not gotten us very far. (The attention to people's material circumstances, rather than to ideological debate, is a large part of what makes Marx so compelling.)

Is there room for a revitalized twenty-first century radical left, that can survive on a mass level in this political climate without compromising its principles? Perhaps there is. But I do not see it. And in the mean time I cannot help but make an effort to improve people's lives in concrete terms by supporting what I can support, even if it does not do what I would like it to. (And I do not think that the radical left is going to gain any converts if it prefers to abstain from rather than participate in and support the reformist struggles that are on the political agenda, even if it involves supporting the Democratic Party.)

[okie]

52. Much depends on our perspective

A feudal monk would've had a difficult time imagining the bourgeois revolution. French students in 1967 had no idea their country would explode in political unrest a year later. The work has to begin somewhere.

I don't disagree when you say American liberalism is in a good position to cope with today's challenges. I just think what is being offered is not particularly good or farsighted. The social reforms of the New Deal and Great Society are not really taken seriously anymore. The reforms we're offered now are things like pushing derivatives trading onto 'transparent' exchanges, or slightly easing up on kids paying for school with student loans. There's no talk of how it's not a very good thing to have an economy so utterly dependent on volatile financial products, or how kids need options for education and learning new skills that don't involve taking on enormous debts. Forget socialist revolution, if we can't even talk about basic stuff like this, the next couple decades will not look very good.

Maybe most Americans still balk at the idea of socialism (though we may be overstating things. See: http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/socialism-viewed-positively-americans.aspx ), that does not change our circumstances, that does not change the fact that American liberals don't seem interested in grappling with a radical critique of capitalism. What if my side is right? What if the conditions today make substantive reform impossible? What if the financialization of the economy, or the vast sums thrown away in the name of 'defense' are not things we can fix through electing the right guy, or through legislative tweaks? What if these things are integral parts of a specific stage in capitalist development? I don't see liberals engaging with this stuff. I'm not saying we shouldn't work for certain kinds of legislation, or try to elect 'progressive' Dems. We can still do these things while getting serious about the problems we're facing.

[EFerrari]

23. I liked this OP.

I don't agree with you on either point. The division does seem to be righter/lefter and the easiest way to show that is to point to threads bashing the left which have been a daily feature of DU for some time.

Similarly, the split seems to be between ideology/principle vs particular politicians and again, the easiest way to show that is that one side of this division feels they are the true supporters of the president and identify themselves in that way.

But, I do agree with your conclusion and think your suggestion is a good one for the board. :thumbsup:

[Unvanguard]

43. Thanks for your kind remarks.

In response:

1. As far as the first point, I think there's some danger of circularity here: if people take harsh criticism of Obama's harsh critics to be "threads bashing the left", then of course it will seem like this argument is an issue of "lefter/righter." Perhaps I haven't been paying enough attention, but I haven't noticed that many threads attacking actual left-wing stances: during the health care reform wars, for instance, there were not many people saying "single payer is a terrible idea and its advocates are crazy radicals." There are undoubtedly people--I am probably among them sometimes--who bash what we see as particularly unrealistic political stances taken by some people on the left, but I think this fits better into my framework of disputes over tactics rather than disputes over ideology. I think a great many things that are good social policy are nonetheless not politically achievable; this hardly makes me any less left-wing.

There are issues, of course, where there are substantive left/right disputes on DU--for instance, immigration reform--but for the most part I think these are different divisions than the ones that erupt over Obama.

Edit: I don't deny that, in the light of the heatedness of this debate and the broad-brush character of a lot of it, there is probably plenty of reason for left-wing people who do not share my view of Obama to feel bashed, and to feel bashed particularly because their views are strongly on the left. What I'm trying to say is that the core issue is not that, and we on both sides would do better to make an effort to understand each other than to leap to conclusions and mischaracterize.

2. As far as the second point, I'm not disputing that those of us who are on the "pro-Obama" side (to put things a bit simplistically) put, as a general matter, a higher premium on party loyalty than those who do not. My point is that this is a matter of means, not ends: we think party loyalty is important in light of the political circumstances to advance the left-wing ends we support.

[HughMoran]

44. Excellent response

Sorry if I'm being overly complimentary here, but your response hits all the right notes for me and I wish I could express them so eloquently when confronted with the type of post you are replying to.

[EFerrari]

47. The problem with arguing that this isn't a left/right conflict

is that "the left" has been bashed here for weeks and prominently by people who self-identify as "Obama supporters". At bottom, I don't know if I believe it is a left/right split but that is how it has been framed here. The looney left, the fringe, progressives who want their ponies, Obama haters -- that kind of silly stuff.

It's strange that people who use that kind of language don't realize that in using it, they are bashing Democrats.

So, it's not really a matter of the left "feeling" bashed but of the left being bashed, which is a strange state of affairs at Democratic Underground.

I appreciate what you say about means v. ends. And it might be useful for people on both sides of this conflict to consider there is always more than one right answer to a problem and more than one way to a solution. Similarly (let's see if I can get this right) there is no worse disloyalty than disengagement so good faith criticism of the party can't reasonably be construed as disloyalty.

[Unvanguard]

49. Fair enough.

That's what I meant to suggest with my edit: I appreciate that the rhetoric on this question does not admit of the kinds of nuances I have been trying to emphasize. My intention was not to imply that you or anyone else was just being irrationally sensitive to things that weren't actually there.

I agree very much with what you say about disengagement. What worries me most of all, beyond whatever disagreements I have with people over Obama's merits, is that many left-wing Democrats will disengage: they will become so disillusioned with Obama and the Democrats that rather with working with the party, they will exit it. That would not be a good thing either for the Democratic Party, which as a consequence would almost certainly move right, or for the country, which would see a right-ward shift in public policy from increased Republican gains and increased Democratic dependence on "moderates."

[EFerrari]

50. Let's see how we do.

:hi:

[TBF]

53. Left-wing Democrats will disengage...

You're exactly right about that. But the answer is not to tell the left that they should be reasonable because things could be so much worse. Try conversation instead of banning words you're afraid of...

[mmonk]

24. Some of us are fighting for something much more deeper than you have posted.

Those things are the survival of a democratic republic as we know it and a secure future with secure rights not destructable under varying political climates or strategies.

[rucky]

39. K&R

Well said!

[grantcart]

40. I could not agree with this post more. Well done.

[HughMoran]

42. Your political perspective and assessment of the issues we confront align with my thinking as well

I hope all DUers will read this post with an open mind. I'm bookmarking it and I will link to it in the future when I think an unnecessary conflict is occurring - I hope you don't mind.

Kudos. I wish I could rec this post 100 times.

[Unvanguard]

46. You are free to link to it as much as you like.

Hopefully it will make some marginal difference, and even if it doesn't, well, I am not going to complain about being more widely read. :)