Pres. Obama's lack of strict Ideology and how it bugs his many idelogical critics

[FrenchieCat]

In matters of politics, there are those who justify their beliefs based on their ideology, and other who do not. There are those who are willing to bend their ideology to achieve progress and others who will not.

The President is not an ideologue, as most who subscribe to compromise as a way of getting things done, even if it isn't everything, cannot be lalebed as strict ideologues, but rather they are considered pragmatists.

A pragmatist: A person who tends to set aside their ideals or higher goals in order to pursue lesser, more achievable objectives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatist

on the other hand,

Many of Pres. Obama's critics are Ideologues. They do not bend in the name of achieving less because they have higher goals.

An Ideologue
1 : an impractical idealist : theorist
2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/IDEOLOGUE


It is very important to understand that both of these approaches to any extreme are not for the best.
Extreme Pragmatists who aren't led by some point of reference known as their ideology may lack principles,

while extreme ideologists who are not interested in compromise cannot advance higher goals, unless all who have the power agree with their ideology, or relent to it.


Our democracy does not allow for extreme ideologues to reign for any length of time,
in particular if the ideology that is being pushed trumps doing anything positive for the masses who exercise the democracy.

Ideologue trapped in a world of pragmatism often believe nothing will change unless
the masses are made to suffer for their sins.

Pragmatists trapped in a world of Ideologues often realize that they can only make incremental changes usually at great risk understanding that they cannot achieve uncompromised sweeping gains.


In a way, it is a religion that each is preaching;
the only difference is who their GOD is that they worship-

A Pragmatist's GOD is called progress and movement,
and in order to adhere to it, will plead for logic, process and perseverance.

And Ideologue's GOD is called principles,
and in order to adhere to it, will plead ideal, cause and effect, and steadfastness.

The question then becomes which one is best for our times?

Those working for progress,
or those wishing the need for a plague upon your house?

Hint: One can qualify as a fundamentalist,
while the other cannot.

[goclark]

1. K and R

[AVID]

2. K&R

[timeforpeace]

80. He has mostly ideology. What he lacks are principles.

[NJmaverick]

3. Pragmatism vs ideology is perhaps the heart of the rift on the left

[silverweb]

4. Well done!

:kick:

[Armstead]

5. The "ideologues" who supported real reform STARTED with a position of huge compromise

Many people believe that the best and most practical solution is either a universal siongle payer system, or at the least an expansion to allow people to buy into Medicare instead of private insurance.,

From the very beginning of the process of HCR they reluctantly agreed to allow that to be "taken off the table" and accepted a weak "public option" as a compromise.

So your characterization of people's disappointment and anger over the total abandonment of a public option -- or even strict regulation of insurance companies regarding prices -- is off base and myopic.

[NJmaverick]

6. Your comments seem to support rather than dispute the OP

[Armstead]

10. As is often the case, your comment baffles me

The OP is bashing critics of the bill for being rigid inflexible ideologues who refuse to budge.

In this whole issue, the people who wanted real reform demonstrated a willingness to take far less than half a loaf. That is very pragmatic.

[NJmaverick]

12. Let me be more direct

giving up an option that was impossible to achieve does not count as compromise. The only compromise was having to surrender the PO, and you certainly have not been gracious on this issue.

[burning rain]

45. Wrong.

A public option is not impossible to achieve. Senate Democrats could do so via the "nuclear option." That they choose not to do so suggests that a decisive number of them prefer to please big insurance, rather than the citizenry. After all, health care reform polled better with public option on the table.

[FrenchieCat]

47. Ideologues rarely consider unintended consequences, and fail to figure them into the equation....

as many firmly believe that they are so right, that everyone else will see it that way soon enough.
That is what makes them dogmatic; because they really can only see their view as the right view. Those things seen and unseen that lurk in the sphere would mess up the ideal that has already been poured into concrete, and so, to view those as elements of the mechanism of the larger policy would only upset their apple cart.

The fact that we have a corporate media who have put themselves in charge of shaping public opinion, and have gotten better every year in making the bully pulpit less of a formidable force, decide; not you, and certainly not we the people so much. If you think that replaying the Bush administration in reverse and using the nuclear option would gain us any progress in a long run, then yours is a short lens naive view.

The polls that you refer to and how the questions were asked demonstrated only that a majority can agree that they all wouldn't mind getting something for g for nothing; it is only when they find out that this wouldn't be the case that they would turn on the idea like a hot flash. Ours is a fickle public, led by the nose by the media. Pragmatics understand this well, as they look at all of the scenarios projected out in order to arrive at what the best approach would be to get something worthwhile accomplished while maintaining the right amount of capital to be able to do some more.

[burning rain]

53. I've said any number of times that I consider the Senate bill worth passing in its present form,...

that is to say, with no public option, but I mean to fight for one if at all it can be had. So please don't pester me with vague pragmatist-vs-ideologue generalities: address my point.

[burning rain]

68. I'm also surprised that you'd lift Mary Landrieu's "something for nothing" talking point.

She is, after all, not even a good Democrat--and whatever our differences, FrenchieCat, I know you are that.

The threat of using the nuclear option by Frist and his merry band had only good effects for them: Senate Democrats begged to retain the right to filibuster, with the promise that they wouldn't exercise it, and rolled over for Bush's judicial nominees--who'd been the source of the dispute in the first place. The reversals Republicans suffered (and justly so) in 2006 were due to the Iraq war obviously going bad, Katrina, obnoxious Schiavo antics, and corruption, not Senate arcana and legerdemain, which scarcely anyone cares about. After all, pragmatists care about results, not procedure, Frencheroony. :D

[FrenchieCat]

78. Didn't know she had a patent on it.

I also recall, there no such thing as a free lunch.

Point is, I didn't get it from her.

But I do appreciate your responses. Not something I can say about all.

[burning rain]

85. Well, she more than anyone peddled that line in the Senate.

I have to doubt that that was her genuine concern, because she strongly supported the Medicaid expansion, and securing extra for her state--and Medicaid really is a free lunch (and well-deserved, of course) for its recipients. I know I'm extra suspicious of politicians, and try to compensate by constantly asking myself whether I'm extending benefit of the doubt as much as warranted, but there are too many red flags in her case. Smells like red herring to me. Not that I'm totally unsympathetic to Landrieu. She's not my kind of Democrat, but I'd certainly prefer her to a Republican--especially a nasty Louisiana-style rightwinger in the mold of David Vitter. If the Senate passed the bill via nuclear option, she and several other Democrats who felt overly exposed politically, could vote No and still have the bill pass, letting them off the hook.

I appreciate you, too. I think there's a lot to be said for those with strong loyalties, even if I have some disagreements. :)

[FrenchieCat]

8. I have looked into the post history of those most rabid ideologues here,

and not a one every accepted any compromises at any point.
They started out with Single Payer, and are still basically stating the same thing.
Whatever they may have "claimed" that they would accept,
they actually never did, because there was never a "done deal" for them to accept.

You may be talking for yourself, but there are shades of ideologues,
not all of them strict.

[Armstead]

21. If you acknowledge that there are shades of ideologues on all sides, I'll agree

It is important to separate things like opinions on a message boards from the actual negotiations in Congress and the participation of lobbyists and interest groups. In the actual arena, the advocates of single payer/public option were very vocal, but also bent and compromised all along the way.

Actually, I will cop to the charge of being rather ideological in my writings on a message board.

After all, a message board is basically a forum for exchanging ideas and opinions. And I feel very strongly that the ONLY way to fix the system is single payer or at least to at least offer everyone the option of participating in a public coverage system that is affordable.

But in terms of what I would have accepted as the end product, I was willing pragmatically accept something small that would have at least opened the door for such a program, coupled with stricter regulation insurance companies. My anger is based on the complete loss of anything like that in the final bill despite all the willingness to compromise by proponents of reform.

[boppers]

39. The door's being opened with the NHSC.

A single payer system is gradually being built up in tandem with the private system... getting us to the goal of healthcare for all, paid for by national tax income.

[ibegurpard]

32. Single payer here

I would've accepted a compromise of public options.
You don't START with a position of public options when you want single payer...now we have nothing...except codified control of our health care by the insurance industry.

[Armstead]

42. In retrospect you may be right

I beleve with 20/20 hindsight that proponents of some form of public coverage program probably should have stood firmer from the beginning, and used the same sort of leverage that the right wing democratic ideologues did. Then we might have at least gotten a half a loaf.

But that's water under the bridge now. My point was to disagree with the OP that proponents of a public plan didn;t compromise.

[Enrique]

7. you mean he's not a liberal ideologue

his Nobel speech was very ideological.

His position on gay marriage is ideological. He says he's opposed to gay marriage because of his religion. That's not pragmatic.

[FrenchieCat]

11. I disagree.....

His Nobel Speech was the epitome of Realism via Pragmatism,
as for Gay Marriace, you have narrowed the plight of Gays to one sole issue,
when I believe that there are many issues facing the Gay Community.
And I suggest that like everwhere else, the Gay community has its own pragmatist views,
vs. its strict ideologues.

US: Nobel Speech Places Obama Within Realist-Liberal Tradition
Analysis by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Dec 10 (IPS) - In formally accepting the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo Thursday, U.S. President Barack Obama enunciated a worldview that places him squarely within the realist and liberal internationalist thinking that dominated post-World War II U.S. foreign policy - at least until his predecessor's "global war on terror."
...
And his quotation of John F. Kennedy, widely seen as the embodiment of the two schools’ fusion, in favour of working "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions" - made clear what Obama sees as his overarching task in world affairs. "A gradual evolution of human institutions," he repeated for emphasis.

"In a sense, this was one of the clearer statements of foreign policy principle that Obama has delivered to date: an extended defence of using realist means in the service of liberal internationalist ends," wrote the conservative New York Times columnist, Ross Douthat.

The speech, he added, was a "corrective to some of the more hubristic elements of Bush’s foreign policy."
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49629

[Cha]

48. Thanks for this reminder, of

his Nobel acceptance speech, Frenchie.

[rug]

9. And then, there are those who are mendacious.

Main Entry: men·da·cious
Pronunciation: \men-ˈdā-shəs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin mendac-, mendax — more at amend
Date: 1616
: given to or characterized by deception or falsehood or divergence from absolute truth <mendacious tales of his adventures>

synonyms see dishonest

— men·da·cious·ly adverb

— men·da·cious·ness noun


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mendacious

[FrenchieCat]

14. I'm sure that there all kinds....

As there are also the nefarious -

ne·far·i·ous (n-fâr-s)
adj.
Infamous by way of being extremely wicked.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nefarious


and the disingenuous

Main Entry: dis·in·gen·u·ous
Pronunciation: \ˌdis-in-ˈjen-yə-wəs, -yü-əs-\
Function: adjective
Date: 1655
: lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating

— dis·in·gen·u·ous·ly adverb

— dis·in·gen·u·ous·ness noun

But was trying to stick to main two points,
not going for all emcompassing name calling. :eyes:

[rug]

18. This is fun.

Main Entry: du·plic·i·tous
Pronunciation: \du̇-ˈpli-sə-təs also dyu̇-\
Function: adjective
Date: 1928
: marked by duplicity : deceptive in words or action

— du·plic·i·tous·ly adverb

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/duplicitous

[NJmaverick]

22. As someone who considers you a pretty good person

please stop, this behavior is beneath you.

[tblue]

13. In what camp was MLK? RFK? Jesus?

Just wondering.

I am no ideologue. I just want to unBush this country.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Well that would be a fine discussion to have.......

based on what I have stated, and what you know from your own sources and way of thinking, what do you think?

[dave29]

74. I would point out none of these people ever were President

of the United States... but yes, they were all ideologues, although both RFK and MLK were pragmatic to a degree. In terms of Jesus, more people have died and suffered in his name than almost any other person on the planet. And no one's words more twisted in support of following ideologies through history. MLK and RFK saw simple truths as many ideologues do. They have dreams which take time to incorporate. None have happened overnight, or even over a decade.

JFK got us to the moon within 10 years, but even that was driven by a pragmatic realization that we had to be "better" than the Russians or face potential downfall vs the ideology of communism.

For every ideology there is a pragmatism behind it and vice versa. These things co-exist on purpose, and they grate against each other in the reality that is our Democracy.

[IndianaGreen]

15. Nixon was a pragmatist

Look at what we got from him!

[Forkboy]

17. All pragmatism and no ideals sucks. All ideals and no pragmatism sucks.

Finding a human being that walks that line almost impossible.

[FrenchieCat]

23. I made the point that either extremes are not a good idea.....

but I believe that there are many humans who walk that line,
as there is no reason to believe otherwise.
I believe our President is one such Human.

my OP stated: "It is very important to understand that both of these approaches to any extreme are not for the best.
Extreme Pragmatists who aren't led by some point of reference known as their ideology may lack principles,

while extreme ideologists who are not interested in compromise cannot advance higher goals, unless all who have the power agree with their ideology, or relent to it."

[Forkboy]

51. Many do walk that line, but it seems the number is shrinking in public service.

At least on a national level. I think there is reason to think otherwise in this particular area. That's not to say there are none, and there's still more than a few who care deeply, and some new ones that show promise. Franken has been great so far, for instance, and I think he's a good example of walking that line, though how long one can remain in the atmosphere of Washington D.C. and remain that way is always a question.

I think overall Obama is a good man and he means well, and my criticisms of him are simply policy based and nothing more. I don't think he's a soulless guy being led by the nose by evil forces or a puppet of the insurance industry, and I fully realize the job he inherited from Bush. Remove the war, his stance on gay rights (so far at least) and his stance on wiretapping/Patriot Act and I have no major beefs with him. I've believed in these issues in one form or another all along, through Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and now Obama (I was born in '67, so anything before Reagan held little interest for me at the time...No Nukes is what got me into politics in the early 80's). For me, these issues apply regardless of the Party that's in power behind them. I've always considered myself an ideologue, and I don't run from it at all (my father once said I was too idealistic...I said he wasn't idealistic enough....debate ended with laughs), but I do hope that I balance that out with some common thinking and pragmatism. I'm sure I don't always, but I try. And I do believe Obama tries as well, even when I don't agree with him.

[FrenchieCat]

56. I appreciate this post of yours........

Truly.

[Forkboy]

64. DU has a severe tendency to reduce everyone to a position of having to love them or hate them.

We are extremely binary in our thinking here (I can be just as guilty of it myself sometimes). At times it seems like there's little room for people like myself who neither love nor hate the President. If one defends him they're a worshiper. If one criticizes him they're a hater. It worries me how quickly we Dems adopt such simplistic thinking, and this isn't the first time I've watched it unfold like this. It's the 90's all over again, where Bubba was either the greatest or the worst person to ever stride the planet depending on which Dems I asked. No middle ground at all. There's room for praise and room for criticism, and we shouldn't be afraid of either one. In fact, we should welcome both when earned. It would make us a stronger party instead of the weaker one we seem hell bent on creating for ourselves.

[ibegurpard]

19. depends on whether you agree

that his compromises are good enough
Health care reform that enshrines insurance companies as political institutions?
sorry, that's not worth compromising over...that needs to be opposed.

[FrenchieCat]

24. Have you read the bill?

Because if so, I'd like to discuss it with you,
although it sounds like your mind is already closed.

[ipaint]

20. That's fucking crazy. Is this supposed to explain away 186 secret

ICE detention centers. The total reversal on the patriot act. Tell me where is the pragmatism in that?

Is there nothing a pragmatist can do to offend the loyal?

And that religion stuff is well... could be right out of the old testament and that's not a good thing.

[FrenchieCat]

25. You are one of the ones who has never ever had anything positive to state

about this administration.

In otherwords, you wish a pox upon our houses.
In your opiniuon, that is the only way we will ever
understand the ideals that you hold.

You are a prime example of a fundamentalist Ideologue.

[ipaint]

38. A pox on your houses???

Is that like cooties? I could give a shit about a pox, sounds like something out of kid's fairytales.


How about we try to follow the constitution like adults. A little law and order would be nice, prosecuting torturers would be great. Howabout the criminals on wall street. The architects of this massive recession you know the ones in Obama's cabinet. How about a little jail time in a real federal prison.


Idealogues in this case = folks who put civil rights and laws above partisan personalities.

[NJmaverick]

30. LOL! Your "secret" centers was "discovered" by asking the government for a list

you'll have to do better than that

[ipaint]

34. So a reporter finally got around to asking the right questions.

What does that have to do with the fact we have secret detention centers across the country for anyone some asshole ICE official suspects is illegal. No counsel, no phone , no beds and no fucking toilet. Just pluck people off the street and hold them for god knows how long in unmarked rooms in an unmarked building.
If I was saying we have a topnotch investigative press you'd have an argument but tell me what is the administrations excuse for this and the reversal on the patriot act. Please point out the progress the OP egotistically insists only pragmatists can attain.

[depakid]

26. A pragmatist would have pushed hard for reconciliation in order to pass effective legislation

rather than bending to the IDEOLOGICAL will of a few extortionists in the Senate.

And this isn't the first time that effective and readily achievable policies been thrown out thde window (or under the bus) in favor of ideological half measures- or outright failures that pander to industry groups (who often cause the problems the legislation- or administrative regulations were supposed to address in the first place).

No, what we have here is conflict aversion- to the point of the pathological- which is not pragmatism by any stretch.

What worries me at this stage is that international leaders and their advisers are also going to clue into this pattern as they watch how domestic policy is handled, which could then undercut the chances for successful foreign policy initiatives.

[NJmaverick]

27. As you seem to be an ideologue, I am not sure you are qualified to say what a pragmatist would do

[depakid]

33. LOL- I find that amusing (as would anyone who knows me)

or has worked with me on these very issues over the years.

One thing I'm not though- is anyone's or any party's acolyte.

[NJmaverick]

36. I almost was ready to accept that claim until the last sentence

"One thing I'm not though- is anyone's or any party's acolyte." See a true pragmatist understand this nation is a two party system and would never call a person that supports the dems to keep the right out of power an "acolyte".

So I am on solid ground with my first post. Besides it was based on my own observations of your positions, so it's not like it was just a guess or something.

[FrenchieCat]

29. The proof of a pragmatist at work is in what actually happens,

not so much in theory but in reality.

The ideologue is the one steeped in theory....
because their main point is to promote their view,

An Ideologue
1 : an impractical idealist : theorist


a Pragmatist approach is to actually make it happen.

You only speak in theory, when making your points,
which is a hint in itself as to where you fall....

meanwhile we have a bill going to conference,
because a pragmatic approach is the active pursuit of more achievable objectives.

[depakid]

35. Unsustainable policy that both empowers the worst elements of the party

and enriches the coffers of those who caused the problems- while at the same time creating every incentive to degrade the health coverage available to most Americans is the opposite of pragmatism by any measure.

Politically and practically- it approaches stupidity.

[FrenchieCat]

57. I believe that you have jumped to conclusions,

that are premature and based on no more than the fact free speculation of a cynic.
Cynicism is good to a point, although I prefer Skepticism, if anything.
But if we all were as cynical as you, we'd really be totally fucked....
which is why I will personally try to be as unlike you as I can be.

[ruggerson]

28. That still doesn't explain why he's fighting an administrative federal ruling that would weaken DOMA

a pragmatist would take an order from a Federal Judge as a gift on a silver platter and comply with it.

[FrenchieCat]

31. I've followed a bit on this,

and I don't believe that this issue has been settled yet.
Usually a Pragmatist can only be proven so based on what he/she achieves
in the end...cause the entire point is an achievable objectives.

but I know where you are going.......
guess we can point at one million things,
and still all be in our own corners....
and that would be exactly what I'm talking about.

[ruggerson]

37. if we are to be honest with ourselves

DOMA is not going to be legislatively repealed at anytime in the next few years. The majority of the Democratic congresscritters are cowards on this issue, as is the President.

They will talk the talk, but they won't walk the walk.

Hence, the judiciary will more than likely have to provide the avenue for overturning parts or all of DOMA in a more timely manner.

Little chinks in the armor help along the way, as Boise and Olsen in CA and the GLAD case in MA wend their way up the federal judiciary ladder.

This Kozinski case serves as a perfect chink. He is a Reagan appointed Federal Chief Judge and he has handed Obama a golden opportunity to take a politically risk free swipe at DOMA, all within the bounds of current law.

It's depressing as hell that the President won't step up to the plate on this, even when he's being lobbed the softball of all softballs.

There is no excuse on this, Frenchie. None.

[FrenchieCat]

40. I am not looking for an excuse.....

and if we were at the end of Obama's four years, you might have a point.
But since we aren't, no excuse is needed....only something that most folks hate,
which is some patience.

I don't expect anyone to support anything the President is doing on other fronts
if their own primary agenda is not met....till he does, as that is their choosing.
That's something that I don't have the right to call.
Further, I am not an attorney, and therefore I reserve judgment until there is no hope in sight,
anyways, anyhow. I don't believe that we are there yet......but certainly what the WH's Justice dept
chooses to do or not to do should be followed closely and remarked on.

There is a wide difference between those who disagree with certain actions taken by the President,
and those who disagree with every action taken by this President....or those who refuse to
acknowledge any good that comes even if it isn't related directly to them.

[ruggerson]

44. I don't think many here

disagree with everything this President does.

I'm delighted with his exec order on stem cells. I'm willing to give him latitude on Afghanistan, though I wish he would turn it into a CIA operation. I would vote yea on the healthcare bill, now that we finally know essentially what it entails, even though I disagree with a lot of it - it does more good than harm, imho.

But, I don't believe he's been a fierce advocate or even a weak advocate on gay rights. I'm troubled by his support for the continuation of key provisions of the Patriot Act. I expect a Democrat, even a pragmatic, co-opting one, to support key Democratic principles, human rights being one of them.

The administration's decision to defy Kozinski's ruling is not pragmatic. It helps no one but religious rightwing bozos and it delays and obstructs progress on getting rid of DOMA. It's not about patience at all, it's about standing up for what is right and good.

[EFerrari]

41. A result not always progress, sorry, that's wrong.

[FrenchieCat]

43. of progress.......

time will tell better than you ever could.

Progress doesn't always walk in a straight line, especially when it is navigating
landmines.


There are certain issues being worked, that may not appear progressive to you currently,
but that doesn't by any means indicate that they will end up as regressions.
I stake all that I know that steps taken by this administration not currently evident as progress now, will be in fact worth the wait at some later point in time.

Obama is known for taking a long view, and those who want to know what he is doing exactly
because they are puzzled would best take a long view too prior to judging.

[EFerrari]

46. No, my point is that pragmatism has nothing to do with progress.

It's not my definition. It's the English language.

[FrenchieCat]

52. Pragmatism is the pursuit of realistic strategy in getting practical progress done....

pragmatism
Noun
1 (philosophy) the doctrine that practical consequences are the criteria of knowledge and meaning and value
2 the attribute of accepting the facts of life and favoring practicality and literal truth


The pursuit of practicality over aesthetic qualities; a concentration on facts rather than emotions or ideals.

The idea that beliefs are identified with the actions of a believer, and the truth of beliefs with success of those actions in securing a believer's goals; the doctrine that ideas must be looked at in terms of their practical effects and consequences.

The theory that political problems should be met with by practical solutions rather than ideological ones.
http://pragmatism.askdefine.com/




Pragmatism, Politics and Progress
http://www.springerlink.com/content/chdhd60tta9rnl7p/

[EFerrari]

54. You are collapsing two completely different ideas.

Progress is a value and an ideal. Pragmatism may result in progress but by definition, progress is not pragmatic.

[Kaleva]

49. k&rec'd

[BootinUp]

50. Bill C on this subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GNpgH6jrUs

[PurityOfEssence]

55. Ideologues have two true virtues:

They actually stand for something, and you know what it is.

With this guy, I don't know if he really does or what in hell it might be today.

Strident purists are at odds with any practical universe, but this kind of plasticity is nobody's friend.

[LeftyMom]

58. Only you could see virtue in a blatant lack of (or willingness to abandon?) principle.

Obama does a better job than Bill Clinton did of looking sincerely concerned and reliable while selling out, but he sells out just the same, and with even less of a fight.

[FrenchieCat]

59. Yeah....only me.

and you are in a class of millions, I'm sure. They are the ones on the other team.

You call names well, and probably hold signs swell just like they do, but there is little else that your post does.

[LeftyMom]

61. Oh honey, I don't know where to start.

Bless your heart, you're trying.

[FrenchieCat]

62. Yep. I'm not about to blow the entire Democratic Agenda,

just cause some pissy folks wanted it all done their way and on their time table or else.

I support the Democratic President, and I ain't ashamed to say it, right here on Democratic Underground.

and I don't need no Amen Choir, either.

[LeftyMom]

63. You actually believe that shit you're spouting, don't you?

That's just sad.

[POAS]

69. After having read this above give and take between you and Frenchie

I can only add, LeftyMom your just sad!

You are one of, and adequately display the attributes of, the blind ideologue as described by Frenchie in the OP.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kltpzyxm]

65. lack of principles

is now a worthy goal for Democrats?

:crazy:

Was there a vote on this?

[PurityOfEssence]

76. No vote; OBEY

He's everything you want him to be, and that should be enough for you.

[Douglas Carpenter]

66. while I agree that signing the bill is the pragmatic thing to do. And I even agree that

given the realities of the overwhelming power insurance companies and the health care industry have in America, it would be highly unlikely that anyone else could have done much better - let's not delude ourselves into thinking that there is something highly ideological about insisting on a genuine public option while Congress and the Administration enacts the most conservative and pro-insurance company health care plan in the modern world. This is not some kind of point of ideological purity. It is not. It is a point of compromise, perhaps even caving in. It might be pragmatic and humanitarian to settle for whatever we can get that will still, inspite of all of its many failings, exstend health care to millions. But insisting on a genuine public option is not ideological purity. It is allowing the insurance companies almost everything they want instead of everything they want.

Being ideologically rigid might have been demanding a government-run and publicly financed, European style national health service and whining and complaining because we only were able to pass single payer such as a Medicare for all program.

What might have been more pragmatic, would have been to aggressively push for single payer or Medicare for all and settled instead for a robust public option. But Medicare for all or some other single-payer system was taken off the table by the real rigid ideologues and sycophants for the insurance companies from day one.

[joeprogressive]

67. Then I must have been at an ideologue party last night;

all Liberals, all very disappointed with Obama and Democrats. Many said they would not vote for him again. FC, you can come here and call us whatever you want but here are a few words for you.

Denialist- b/c you can't face what a big blunder this was.

Nihilist- because when you don't stand up for what is right and what is good, you believe in nothing at all.

Corporatist- our corporations have bought the system and have made people like you believe it is OK

Enabler- because by caving and compromising, you create a system that rewards status quo thinking and empowers those that push that agenda

People like Gandhi, Jesus, MLK, Da Vinci, Galileo, Columbus, Einstein, etc. were all ideologues to a certain extent. Their "theories" and principles went against conventional wisdom of the day and were considered impossible or sought to challenge the prevailing authority. None of those men could have accomplished what they did through incrementalism.

Continue to criticize those that want real change and you continue to alienate the base that brought you to the dance. I would much rather hang out with ideologues than a bunch of sell-out corporatists. I would characterize the Liberals I know as visionary and the conservatives as blinded by indoctrination. Which one are you? You either drink the kool-aid or you walk away. I choose to walk away.

[NJmaverick]

72. Wrong there are many liberals that are quite happy with Obama

the current polls put that number at 80+%. I am a liberal and I am quite happy.

[RepublicanElephant]

70. for those who oppose obama, i got two words for ya....

SUPREME COURT.


that's just one thing we'll lose if we help drive down our president's poll numbers... and hand a victory to the romney/palin/beck camp. who do think they'd put on the court?

[Unvanguard]

71. Oh, god, that's a terrifying thought. n/t

[totodeinhere]

77. I for one am not trying to drive down his poll numbers. But...

IMO he is doing a good job of that himself. Every poll has shown that the American people wanted a public option. The people also want out of Afghanistan now. Yes, the thought of the GOP getting back in and making some Supreme Court nominations is indeed a scary one, but IMO that scenario is more likely if Obama moves away from the progressive ideals that he expressed in his campaign.

Obviously, I can't speak for every person at DU who has criticized Obama, but I think that the vast majority of them want Obama to succeed and they certainly don't want the GOP back in power. But sometimes the best way to help is to offer some constructive criticism.

[apocalypsehow]

73. Kick & Rec. n/t

[GCP]

75. Frenchie I have to admire your loyalty to Obama

You've been consistent in your promotion of him before the election, and defense of his decision-making afterward.
However, I have to say this comes out as rationalization.
I am severely disappointed in his performance on so many issues. I think he is a good man with an excellent brain, but he routinely comes down on the side of the center-right in his decisions, and if it weren't for the fact that we need a democrat in the White House to keep the S.C. at least vaguely centrist, I'd be voting Green in 2012.

[FrenchieCat]

79. Well, the beauty is that we can agree to disagree.....

you have your take on me, and that is your take.
Unfortunately, giving this President some slack
and keeping a level of respect for him is something that
I haven't seen much of on these boards long before
health care was even an issue. So I strive that much
harder to keep a cool head, read the bills, the newspaper articles,
etc....and question their sources before I question the President
(he has been found to be honest more often then the media has,
that's for sure).

So yeah...you are correct, that I have posted on this Democratic Board
as a supporter of this Democratic President quite consistently...
and because there are more than enough critics about everything he does,
although the threads where most could agree he's doing good are summarily ignored,
I've got his back.

"You are the ones that you were waiting for" meant something to me
when I heard it, and my position is to push AND support this President...not doing just one.

So it is simple; I do not feel compelled to take a shit on this President for each of his decisions at this time, even when I don't agree. Certainly there have been more than few times,
where I have disagreed with the tactics/strategy employed by this President, but when I do,
I don't hang out my dirty laundry out repeatedly for everyone to see.....cause my objective is not to deride, distrust, or denigrate this President....it is simply to get fucked up shit from the last administration undone, and get some positive shit done.

And no, I'm not a promoter....I am a true blue Democrat who lived through 8 years of brutal GOP administration, and I ain't going back there ever again no matter what. I have children, and
I want for them the best that I can affect, and I don't believe that my best is to sit on the Internet stomping my feet saying nasty things about the President that I just helped elect just cause I can. I don't want to teach anyone a lesson or be proven right, or none of that self serving bullshit.....I just want what I can to get going in the right direction, and then I want some more.
Those who don't like my approach can sue me, but I'm quite sane and literal in my approach.

[GCP]

81. Well said

:thumbsup:

[goclark]

82. Bravo for you ~ You Can Speak for Me anytime! nt

[Odin2005]

83. Having PRICIPLES makes on an ideologue?

I am sick of CAPITULATING to Corporatists just to say that we "won", as if politics were a fucking game.

[quakerboy]

84. It has seemed to me

That both sides of this are equally idealistic.

Some detractors are ideologically opposed to Obama because he is not lilly white, or because he has a (d). Others are opposed because he does not support their "pure" principals.

Some supporters are ideologically bound to Obama because he is a Democrat, or because they believe he is the good politician. Others support what he actually does, though I am thinking that is a shrinking number right now.

His GOP opponents are certainly ideologically bound to opposing his policy no matter what the details of it are.

I think one could make a credible argument that Obama himself is ideologically bound to compromise, pursuing that goal over all others including good governance or any other principle.