Purists

[ljm2002]

In the ongoing discussions here about various things, I often see those of us who are more to the left called "purists". As in, you purists can't acknowledge reality, you aren't grownups, you don't know the difference between what is desirable vs. what is possible, you can't work within reality, you don't understand compromise, etc.

But then when we on the left find common ground with individuals or groups of a different political leaning -- most recently, on the subject of the NSA's surveillance -- we are accused of suddenly subscribing to the belief system of the individual or group we are allied with on the one issue. In other words, if we go away from Democratic Party purity on one issue, we are suddenly labeled Paulbots (for one obvious example).

So the obvious question is, who are being the purists here? The ones who will look at an issue on its merits and are willing to align with others even of another party on the issue; or the ones who simply will not entertain any notion that someone in another party might now and then be on the right side of an issue?

[forestpath]

1. Very good point.

[Gman]

2. Good point

The reality is the very old adage "politics makes for strange bedfellows." And it doesn't matter which side gives you their votes as long as you get the right thing done. Then you agree to disagree until next time. The thing you don't do is sell your soul to the devil in exchange for something you can't support.

[ljm2002]

4. "politics makes for strange bedfellows." -- yep.

But apparently, some of us here are not allowed to invoke that time-tested axiom of politics.

[Gman]

5. DU is a self-contained microcosm that

More often than not has little resemblance to the real world.

Fortunately.

[Skip Intro]

3. Party above country vs. country above party?