Those who are called "Purists" are actually the Pragmatists

[Armstead]

Last edited Wed Feb 12, 2014, 01:34 AM - Edit history (1)

"Purist" is one of those terms that gets thrown around a lot, as applied to those naïve leftist souls who believe that some course-corrections are necessary, both in the nation and the Democratic Party.

"You're too much of a purist for pushing for xxxxxxx. We have to be pragmatic."

From the Webster's Dictionary definition of pragmatism:
"a reasonable and logical way of doing things or of thinking about problems that is based on dealing with specific situations instead of on ideas and theories..... A practical approach to problems and affairs."

So how is all that "pragmatism" by the Democratic centrist faction working out? After all, it has been the guiding approach for the last 30 years or so.

hmmmm..

The larger debate about fiscal policy is all about cutbacks, austerity and all of the things the GOP pushes in order to shrink government so it "falls down the bathtub drain (as one wingnut put the goal)...And therefore we have no real debate or "compromises" on pulling out the safety net, or job stimulus public works, etc. Just trying to salvage a small slice from the GOP Pillagers.

Big Corporations and Big Finance continue to get bigger and more powerful and more abusive. We don't even talk seriously about restraining the growth of monopolies, trimming back the Too Big to Fail Banking behemoths.

The press and information and education infrastructure has been completely handed over to Big Media Monopolies, thanks to deregulation pushed just as hard by Democrats.

Health insurance is still privatized, and too expensive for many people with no alternatives to many (unless one lowers their income enough to become qualified for scanty subsidies or actually enters poverty).....

ETC.

IMO that doesn't recommend the approach of the last 30 years as being the truly "pragmatic" answer to anything.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. I cannot recommend this post enough

Best post of the day.

It's "pragmatic" only for Third-Way bank accounts. For the reat of us, it's a catastrophe.

[Silent3]

2. Do you think a person is called a "purist" just for believing "some course-corrections...

...are necessary", and nothing more?

Really, that's all it takes, that's ALL that's going on when when person on the left calls someone further to the left a "purist"?

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Sometimes, yes. nt

[Armstead]

5. You're really racking up those hearts there, sir

[Armstead]

4. A certain amount of understandment was there

But a lot of times, yes that's what happens.

[Silent3]

6. Nah.

It's more about what people think will or will not be helpful in bringing about "course correction".

[Armstead]

19. My point was that certain basic things have not been helpful, but thats not being purist

If you look at the net effect of the basic strategy of always starting with what corporations and the wealthy will "accept" as the basis of policy, the cumulative effect is that we move away from our basic principles and goals.

Endless specific examples of that. but I'd say that most times the "purists" have warned about the bad consequences of this approach in the past, they were ignored and/or criticized as being naive ideologues......But over time, those warnings have proven to be correct.

The drip drip drip has pushed us in a bad direction to which the "centrist" approach has unfortunately contributed.

[Silent3]

49. How is what you just wrote a response to what I wrote?

Non sequitur.

Having a negative stereotype in your head of what "pragmatic" means still does not mean that someone calls another person a "purist" because the other person advocates a "course correction".

[Armstead]

51. I dont have a negative strerotype of what pragmtic means

But people here often describe their approach as pragmatic and use the term "purist" because it is a put down that implies the other does not understand how the world works, and only goes by some pure notion of utopia.

To me a course correction (which i frickin said was understatement) from the path hat those who claim to be the only pragmatists is necessary because it has not been working if you look at where we've gone over the last 30 years.

In my opinion, a change from those policies and strategies is pragmatic, according to the definition of changing when something isn't working.

Your opinion may differ. Feel free.

[Silent3]

53. A dispute over what is or is not pragmatic...

...is not calling someone a purist for wanting "course corrections". Even if "purist" is meant as a put down, that doesn't change the accusation to being about who does or does not want "course corrections".

[Armstead]

54. Fer crissakes, you want plain simple English? Okay here goes.

I,me, moi (and many others) believe we need course correction BIG TIME, for the reasons I cited in the OP and many more.

Not just a "course correction." A major change from the corporatist, neo-liberal, Wall St. butt-kissing, corporate toadying behavior of the last 30 plus years.

I am not a "purist. I'm actually kind of moderate. On economic policies, I'm in line with those extremists like FDR, Hubert Humphrey and LBJ (except that messy war) and in more modern times the late Paul Wellstone and Bernie Sanders and many others.

As I said before. Feel free to disagree. But please don't get bogged down in word salad, nit picking hair splitting grammar-school teacher nonsense.

[Silent3]

57. I would never call you a purist for any of those views you just stated.

That would not happen, if it was going to happen at all, until you said a lot more than what you've just said.

I reacted to your OP because the wording you used is almost always disingenuous. Very much like when someone spouts a conspiracy theory, someone else questions or scoffs at said conspiracy, and the retort from the conspiracist is "What do have against people asking questions?" -- when "asking questions" was never, ever the point of dispute.

You may call it, "get(ting) bogged down in word salad", but I think it's a very important point that disputes over who is and isn't being too purist are very seldom about who does and does not want change, or what kinds of changes are wanted, but about degrees of change and tactics to achieve whatever degree of change is desired.

[Armstead]

58. I half agree that differences are often over degree -- but often it is about direction

And after being a participant here for ten years I've seen the pattern where people who are critical of democratic leadership are called naive purists. It happens in the larger picture too.

That is simply claiming that anyone who does not follow the "centrist" template is naive and does not "understand" the situation or the need to be "pragmatic."

My OP was a reaction to that.

Let me be specific.

I was very staunchly critical during the whole health care debate. Ieally, I believe we should have universal single-payer health coverage through a public system, with the insurance companies thrown out of it or

As a compromise towards a total overhaul, I supported the public option, nd forcing the insurance companies to compete with public insurance.

I would have supported that or other "moderate" compromises if they had led in the direction of universal coverage that was actually affordable.

But I believed (and believe) that the ay it was done was not a compromise, but was undercutting the very basic idea of true reform. It was similar to what would have happened if Medicare had originally either been strangled in its crib by the Democratic Party or turned into a private plan that had no bearing on its original purpose.

It doesn't matter to me if people disagree with the position of people like me on justifiable points.

But I don't like it when people simply dismiss and try and marginalize us as naive and then claim that putting the insurance companies in charge of health reform was the only realistic "pragmatic" way....That is what my OP was about.

Again your mileage may vary.

[creeksneakers2]

91. I don't think everything in the last 30 years

fits your description. You can find things that do but then you'd have to ignore the things that weren't.

[Armstead]

93. Please give me some examples.

I'm serious. Not being snarky.

What of any significance has reversed this trend?

[creeksneakers2]

104. The Affordable Care Act

Prescription drugs for SS recipients.
Every child can get health insurance.
Student Loan relief (some of the money taken back from the banks)
Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Gay Marriage.
End of Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Food Stamps to larger population.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. A quick look back at the 'Pragamatic' blather around marriage equality makes your theory

fall to pieces.
Here is a 'Pragmatic View of Marriage Equality' from 2003:
2003 example is as good as a thousand others.
" I see no issue w/ gay marriage, but I'm willing to be pragmatic
Since legalizing gay marriage would only concern civil marriage, I, in principle, am not at all opposed. However, I also think that among the general public there is a major association between the term "marriage" and the sacred religious institution, even when discussing civil marriage.

For that reason, I'm willing to support civil unions intead of gay marriage, at least as an interim solution for the next few decades. Politically, I think what needs to be enacted is the best possible solution that can be passed. Gay marriage cannot -- at least not yet. Civil unions (which is civil marriage under a different name)."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=145943&mesg_id=146400

See, it's 'pragmatic' to accept civil unions as an 'interim solution' for oh, just the next few decades. Marriage cannot be passed, not for decades!!!!!! And Civil Unions are just another name for marriage! Pragmatic!

[Armstead]

29. The Wayback Machine can be useful

[Silent3]

50. Same comment I made to Armstead applies here.

How is what you just wrote a response to what I wrote?

Having a negative stereotype in your head of what "pragmatic" means still does not mean that someone calls another person a "purist" because the other person advocates a "course correction".

[Demo_Chris]

7. Great thread.

[KittyWampus]

8. You can try to redefine terms but ultimately it's about ideologues whom some call purists.

Politics by definition implies an opposition… and being pragmatic mean finding a way forward even in the face of strong opposition.

What is funny is many who would agree with the OP would also throw around the term "Orwellian" while the OP itself is essentially labeling one political term with its opposite.

[TheKentuckian]

9. No shit there is an opposition! Welcome to reality.

Now, that you've grasped that perhaps we can dispense with the "bipartisan" fallacies and the phony ass "common ground" nonsense we can move on to getting it that the opposition must be opposed, fought tooth and nail rather than appeased and knuckled under for.

Pragmatism is about doing what must be done not what is always the path of least resistance or just doing something. Pragmatism sometimes requires one to accept short term losses for long term goals.

[Armstead]

14. Orwellian is in the mind of the beholder. So is pragmatic.

The Op was a response to a tendency that I would consider Orwellian. Calling a person a "purist" because their beliefs of what should be done differs from yours. (The generic "yours" not you specifically.) Also claiming that your own beliefs are the only practical "pragmatic" approach.

[treestar]

10. I think of a "purist" as someone who throws away any progress

when they think it's not enough, leaving the right wing victorious. And someone who gets angry at Democrats when it's not happening fast enough, even in the face of Republicans in power who actively oppose those things, spending more time attacking Democrats for the fact they can't force Republicans to vote the right way.

Such as those who'd have us with nothing on health care since we could not get single payer or a public option out of even a Democratic Congress. But we did get somewhere with health care. Only a purist would prefer nothing at all because what we could get is not good enough for them.

[jtuck004]

11. I think it's more pragmatic to feed children than bankers, 'twould be the purist that disagrees.

Have to have their compromise to create their "vision". Narrow maybe, but a picture. A damn site smaller than the one most Americans carry around in their heads, I expect.

The pragmatist doesn't see how slowly starving a few hundred thousand families while paying the bankers who caused the financial crisis $1.4 trillion a year, which they then loan to really wealthy people on interest rate only loans to buy enough housing for themselves to house a hundred families is good for anyone but the wealthy and their stooges.

It would seem to me to take a purist with a vision of some other god forsaken path to take us into supporting the wealthy with permanent tax breaks vs expiring sops to working people and hungry families, a cycle that does nothing but continue to circle the country around the drain. They let money that would have fed our economy in FAR greater proportion (you can google it, I presume - it's CBO stuff, and others) than any dollar a wealthy person ever spent (the wealthy don't "spend" that much, btw. They "invest it in getting more money) expire in the smoke of their "progress". The purist seems to embrace the concept of destroying the target to save the target, willing to throw anyone under a bus necessary to keep the assets of the wealthy intact. These policies are doing a marvelous job of that. Simply marvelous.

Tomato, Tomato, right?

And we'll see about health care. Some see it as a match won or something, I see it as a fight just starting...

[treestar]

20. didn't we "pay the bankers" to keep the companies afloat

and keep millions thereby in their jobs? It is just so disingenuous to pretend only the very top benefits and that was the intent to the politicians. Geez, even the Republicans don't deserve that. Why did we "bail out" the auto companies? Because of all the ordinary jobs that would otherwise be lost.

[Armstead]

23. I bought into the "saving the economy" stuff myself at the time..

but in hindsight, the WAY that was done has been an unmitigated disaster.

Instead of a drastic crash we got a slow motion disaster that enriched the very institutions and assholes who created the problem in the first place. And has ultimately helped them to become even bigger and more powerful and abusive.

Not enough oversight of the money and the banks (and the whole financial sector). NO accountability for screwing up.

We basically just handed them the money and said "have good time." And they have -- at our expense.

[treestar]

24. IMO much bigger disaster had the banks and auto companies collapsed

The intent of even the Republicans was to avoid that. Millions work for big companies. So rooting for them to collapse makes no sense. Unless people really think it will bring on some Marxist revolution. Which would include a lot more suffering on its way and possibly bring no paradise, as past such revolutions have shone.

[Armstead]

28. You miss the point

There were ways to cover those losses without handing them bundles of our cash with no accountability.

And as for big corporations, yes they have always been a big aspect of our economy. It's not a matter of wanting them to collapse and going back to some mythical Utopia. That's where the criticisms of "purists" loses credibility. It's a false dichotomy.

There is a HUGE difference between having a successful multilayer economy, in which there are large successful companies that also contribute to the well being of society and play by the rules, and what we have today -- which is a handful of abusive monopolies that are trying to screw the rest of us over, kill off all competition and suck the lifeblood of workers and consumers.

[jtuck004]

39. That's like saying it's good work to subsidize plantation owners to keep slaves in the fields.

Because what would the poor slaves do without them?

We would have been better off putting the thieving asswipes in jail and and fixing their mess, instead of enabling them.

[El_Johns]

80. +1. There were other ways to save jobs, while punishing the criminals. The PTB chose not to punish

the criminals, and not to save that many jobs either.

The auto bailout is a case in point. It resulted in two-tier hiring, with new starting wages in the industry around $12/hour; loss of various benefits in both tiers and other racheting down of labor. If jobs were saved you can probably count them on a few hands, because there ain't that many jobs in the US auto industry anymore.

2005:

Wagoner, who is also chairman of GM, did not offer more details other than to say the troubled automaker needs to cut capacity by the end of 2008. GM, which has lost $1.1 billion in the first quarter, is facing its worst financial crisis in more than a decade.

The 25,000 jobs represent about 17 percent of GM's U.S. work force, which includes 111,000 unionized employees and another 39,000 salaried staff.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/07/news/fortune500/gm_closings/

2010:

GM now sells more cars in China than it does in the US, but makes most of them there. The company now employs 32,000 hourly workers in China. But only 52,000 GM hourly workers remain in the United States – down from 468,000 in 1970.

http://www.redstate.com/barrypopik/2010/11/19/one-million-jobs-saved-gm-was-bailed-out-cut-its-workforce-to-about-52000-which-equals-a-million-how/

2012:

To be exact: GM’s December 31, 2011 annual report shows General Motors of North America accounting for 98,000 of the 207,000 GM jobs worldwide. But 12,000 of these jobs are in Canada and 11,500 are in Mexico. Accordingly, GM has 74,500 jobs in the United States and 122,500 abroad, even after Obama’s touted surge in Detroit jobs. Almost two thirds of GM’s jobs are in other countries.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/08/12/outsourcer-in-chief-obama-of-general-motors/


Yeah, "saving jobs". right.

there were about 140,000 GM jobs before the bailout -- today there are half that, and part of those are 2nd tier $12/hour starting jobs with limited benefits; plus some of those are "permatemps".

[Armstead]

88. But,but,but....don't confuse me with the facts

[Armstead]

17. There's a difference though....

Each specific issue has its own dynamics involved.

But in my opinion, the differences are not between moderate or extreme, or purist versus pragmatic. It is a matter of direction.

It's important to look at the cumulative effect of a set of strategies-- if you assume that almost everyone here (except the trolls) shares a very basic set of principles that are similar, whether you call them liberal/progressive/center left.

My OP was looking at the overall results of a pattern of strategies whose cumulative results have not only been too little, but have helped take the country in the wrong direction. And, more importantly have been counter productive in the long run. (In my opinion, of course.)

In my opinion, for example, I do think the whole health care reform battle was a debacle that illustrated this. Rather than being a few steps in the right direction, it took us in the wrong direction.

Yes there were a few good things, but overall it was conterproductive because it further embedded private insurance into the system, and forced us to buy the products of what is basically an industry based on exploitation of suffering.

No time to rehash the specifics of that, but just trying to make the point. Moderation is a matter of degree, which is a legitimate source of debate.

But the the cumulative effect of an overall strategy of basing policy on the desires of Big Money and the corporate oligarchs as the starting point, is a matter of direction. And the cumulative results of that over time has been a slow-motion disaster.

[treestar]

21. How can we possibly be "going in the wrong direction?"

We have something as a start on health care. Eliminating pre-existing conditions was significant. Getting everyone covered is at least significant progress towards single payer.

Look at the progress of gay marriage and eliminating DADT. How can anyone but a right winger think that is a "wrong" direction?

And Republicans have still been powerful when all this happened. If we don't get them out of office, how can we get anywhere? Republicans actively fight to turn the clock back.

[Armstead]

26. On social issues yes, but on economic issues we've moved back to the Gilded Age

Ultimately, at least in my opinion, we are moving in the right direction on social issues overall (although the Democratics have not always been supportive of that either).

But on issues of money and power, we're been enablers.

I'm trying to avoid the weeds of healthcare again, but, to use your example, the immediate timing was wrong, becaue the nation was focused on getting out of the eonomic disaster at the time. But, IMO, the truly pragmatic approach would have been to go at it in smaller chunks but have a clear direction, and push aggressively for it in steps over time. Put in things that had public support, and use that to build momentum for more fundamental changes.

Pre existing conditions, for example. My choice would have been to make it a law that insurers can't discriminate against that. Plain and simple. No denials or penalties for that. The law. Make it basic "cost of doing business." The insurance companies wouldn't like it, but so what? It's a cost of doing business to fulfill their responsibility to society...Perhaps as a concession, there could be subsidies to cover such instances. but still, make it the law.

That used to be more of the liberal standard, to balance private interest with the public interest. And businesses, for the most part accepted that, and complied.

But now it's "how can we maybe squeeze a little of public interest while giving Bi Money everything it wants?"

[Andy823]

18. Exactly

It's those who constantly complain about everything "not being enough", and who in many cases come out and say that if the democrat running does not fit their idea of the "perfect" candidate, they won't vote for them. As you stated they would prefer nothing at all instead of getting something done by compromise. Those are the purists.

[wocaonimabi]

12. Being centrist or pragmatic does nothing but give credence to GOP Policies and positions

IMHO many centrists are really nothing more then embarrassed Republicans who were driven out of the pub party by the GOP base and they did not have the courage to stand up and fight back against the radical GOP base.

Democrats need to act like Democrats and not Republicans, Henry Wallace should be the role model for a Democratic Leader not Rancid Ronnie.

"Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few."
- George Bernard Shaw

[Scuba]

15. Yep, every time we accomodate the right we tell the voters that's where the good ideas are.

Welcome to DU wocaonimabi. Sorry I'm out of hearts or I'd give you one.

[historylovr]

59. +1. Exactly.

[MO_Moderate]

70. And yet "centrists" make up the majority of the Democratic party

Go figure.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. The majority of the Democratic elected officials who can obtain the financial support

to win elections, you mean. The ones who have to beg for money from the Big Money Greedheads, you mean.

"Far left" positions actually poll well, as long as they're about political-economic issues.

There are some social conservatives who still see neither the Republicans nor the Democrats as representing their economic interests. And why should they, when the accursed "centrist" Dems are doing everything they can to kiss the butts of the wealthy and powerful?

[MO_Moderate]

72. No

I mean the majority of voting Democrats hold moderate positions on the issues and they elect those who share those positions.
"Far left" ideas may poll well, but the taxes, restrictions and mandates to make those ideas come to be, do not. If they did, those ideas would be a part of our every day life. Blaming the peoples rejection of those ideas on money is silly.

[Armstead]

73. Moderate is not the same as the current definition of "centrist"

People to the left may want to pursue goals faster than moderate liberals, but they are all trying to move in the same basic direction.

Centrists, on the other hand, are ultimately pushing for goals that are in a different direction, more to the right.

[MO_Moderate]

74. Bull hockey

There is not some conspiracy to move the party to the right.

We have one group of Dems who agree with and support the majority of our platform, and we have a smaller group of Dems who believe support of anything to the right of them makes one a centrist, corporatist, DINO or whatever.

[Armstead]

77. Not a conspiracy -- But a faction that looooves Big Money

Whose platform are you referring to?

And to the right of what?

I guess if you consider wholesale deregulation, budget cutting and Milton Friedman free trade and Alan Greenspan economics the platform, then I'd say that's to the right of a real moderate liberal.

[MO_Moderate]

84. The Democratic Partys platform

To the right of progressive opinion and interpretation of the Democratic Partys platform.

There has not been any wholesale deregulation going on. Budget cutting is part of governments job.
There is nothing in our partys platform that says Democrats have to be against all deregulation, all cuts, all free trade, or for all tax increases, all government programs, all gun control etc...

[Armstead]

86. Where have you been the last 30 years?

You're correct that Democrats should not automatically be against all deregulation, etc. And yes, fiscal responsibility is important.

But jeeze louise, we have gone so far in that direction since the 80's that the damage has been sever, and continues to get worse.

If I had time, I could give you countless examples, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the country is sinking into a giant pit because of those policies by both parties.

For example, you think it is GOOD thing that most sector of the economy are now almost totally controlled by a handful of giant Mega Corporations?

Personally I don't think unrestrained all-powerful greedy monopolies are a good thing. But i guess that makes me a whacky leftist.

[Enthusiast]

13. K&R! This post should receive hundreds of recommendations.

An army of sockpuppets disagree with this, however.

[xchrom]

16. du rec.

[el_bryanto]

22. There are two sides to the Pragmatist/Purist debate; Electoral and Legislative strategy

I 100% agree with this as regards to electoral strategy - while we have to run people who can win (and in some districts that means more centrist candidates) we should be pushing as much as possible to get people in there who actually reflect our values.

But when it comes to legislative strategy the issue gets a bit more muddied. Republicanoids are a fact of life; if you are going to pass anything you are going to have to work with them (at least for the near term) which means making our representatives are either going to have to be content not passing anything or are going to have to make compromises that enrage us. I think that some of the early Obama premature surrender strategy was bad; you should start out fighting for what you actually want. But with the best will in the world, its unlikely that given how our nation shakes out today that we will get most of what we want out of Congress.

Actually there are probably plenty more sides to this debate, but those are two that struck me.

Bryant

[Armstead]

27. yes legislation is messy, but I'd actually emulate the GOP on that

They have a clear direction they want to go, it is consistent, and they stick to it whether they are in power or out of it. When they are out of power they are able to gum up the works for Democrats, and when they are in power they generally get whatever they want.

That's because they have found a way to be both pragmatic (manipulative) and ideological. So, whatever their temporary electoral position is, the are successful in pushing things in the direction they want, because they stick to their guns.

We should analyze why, and figure out how to be equally consistent with a liberal/progressive ideology, whether one is moderate more more impatient.

[el_bryanto]

31. Their strategy is harder for us to pull off.

They start with the premise that Government doesn't work and is bad; so if they shut down the government or they don't compromise and nothing gets done than that's fine with them.

Obviously we believe that Government can do great things to help everybody. To quote Toby on the west wing.

We're running away from ourselves and I know we can score points that way, I was a principal architect of that campaign strategy right along with you, Josh. But we're here now, tomorrow night we do an immense thing; we have to say what we feel, that government, no matter what its failures in the past and in times to come for that matter, government can be a place where people come together and where no one gets left behind. No one...gets left behind. An instrument of good.

Tea Party Republicans are fine burning down the Government to get what they want; we aren't. We can't be.

Bryant

[Armstead]

35. True..More difficult than simple obstructing ,but not impossible

That is often the reason given for the situation. But there's another factor involved, which, as you noted, is convincing people to support what is in their own economic self interest s well as their sense of common decency.

That's one area where the GOP is much better. They have a consistent underling message that in many ways in counter-intuitive. ("Allowing the wealthy to take from you will make you better off.&quot But they hve figured out a way to make that appealing to peope who aren't paying attention, and they stick with it.

We, on the other hand, tend to hem and haw and backstep to reinforce the GOP message. (Sometimes too many on our side have actually bought into the Corporate CONservative line ourselves, such as the praise heaped on Alan Greenspan during his tenure, and taking the adice of Wall St. con artists.)

[JoePhilly]

44. Thread winner! The GOP would be fine if nothing got done.

Dems are trying to make progress where they can. And every time they do, the GOP tries to make sure their is some "poison pill", some item, that the perpetually disgruntled left will scream bloody murder about, while ignoring whatever positive was achieved.

I just read an OP here on DU in which the author blamed the ACA because the state of NC decided to not accept the federal Medicare funds. Damn Democrats!

When not in power the GOP works to stop all government action, and if they can't stop it completely, they'll do what ever they can to weaken it, or extract some price.

The the Dems adopt the same startegy, the GOP would be thrilled, because that's already the GOP's strategy.

How folks don't get this I'm not sure.

[Armstead]

52. What's frustrating is when Democrats put in their own poison pills

I know what the GOP wants, and the dynamic you describe.

But that makes it harder, not impossible to actually push to advance the liberal agenda. (And yes, the Democratic Party ought to clearly be pursuing the liberal agenda, because that is its role in a two party system.)

But when it is Democratic leaders who are doing things that pushus in the GOP/Right/Corpote Conservative direction, it's a bit frustrating to say the lest. That's not the same as pragmatic compromise. And that's
when many of us get angry.

It's tough enough to be fighting of the GOP. It's much harder when we have to also deal with poison pills being pushed by Democrats.

[JoePhilly]

68. We have redish states where you are not going to get a liberal dem elected.

What you might get is a moderate/centrist dem. And they won't go along with everything.

Even if we have 60 Dems in the Senate, all it takes is ONE on any issue.

[Armstead]

69. How about a moderate liberal dem? At least on economic issues.

I would define moderate liberal as a true centrist -- not those who support the truly radical corporatist agenda to take over everything.

Instead of ceding the field to those who espouse the trends I noted in the OP, how about actually working to win over people in those red states based on their on economic interests and belief in actual democracy?

Just a thought about how we might actually start to turn around the bullshit that is engulfing us.

[bemildred]

46. +1. Breaking things is easy. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

30. You know that movie Sophie's Choice? Sophie had to make a pragmatic choice.

The key is that she had to. She did not seek out that compromise, she was forced to make a decision she did not want to make, pragmatically she did the right thing but she also gave up a child to death and spent her life in regret about it. Better than both children dying, or all three of them. Pragmatic. But if the choice had been Sophie's idea then she becomes a self serving villain, not the tragic hero of a fine film. 'Hey, you guys want us all dead, let's compromise, I'll hand over one of my kids which you can kill right now, me and the other one get another chance at survival, everybody wins'.

[el_bryanto]

32. That's why i think we shouldn't prematurely surrender

Start with what we want while being aware that we will have to compromise along the way.

Bryant

[liberal_at_heart]

45. The problem is how do we get balance back if we keep compromising on legislation?

Things are too far out of balance. It's going to take some pretty drastic changes to balance things out again, and I don't see how we get there by compromising. We are in desperate need of single payer health care, a $15/hr minimum wage, a full restoration of funding to SS, food stamps, education, postal service, pensions, a resurgence of unions, and many other things. We are so far behind we will never catch up by offering a $10/hr minimum wage, ACA, the TPP, and other compromises that we keep making that has all but eliminated our unions and our middle class. We must make some drastic changes.

[Hippo_Tron]

56. See, I think in the totally opposite manner...

Legislative strategy should be that you expect to be in the majority for sometime between 2-6 years and that things completely beyond your control will relegate you back to the minority after that time. So therefore in the 2-6 years you should pass as much as you possibly can, even if that means you might lose a few more seats.

The Europeans don't even bother trying with this permanent majority shit that we attempt in the US. They govern according to the idea that the majority of the country elected them to do what they promised they would do and if the country wants to change direction, they'll vote for someone else.

They also don't relegate their party leaders to the dustbin after losing an election. Bibi Netanyahu was Prime Minister of Israel way back in the 1990's. He went to being a backbencher for a while then eventual became Prime Minister again.

It's a simple fact of life that the other party will eventually win and the vast majority of that has to do with things that are completely beyond our control.

[el_bryanto]

61. I don't think Europe has a problem with Gerrymandering

or it's not as bad as we have it here

The gerrymandering has the effect of making some seats safe for republicans or democrats - but, at least in the republicans case, it means that the districts reward republicans for being as right wing as possible; leading to more ideologically driven members willing to destroy the government to save it.

Bryant

[Hippo_Tron]

92. All the more reason to legislate boldly

The House of Representatives favors rural voters (so does the Senate, but that's a different story) and right now rural voters favor the Republican Party. Therefore the equilibrium for the foreseeable future will likely be Republican control of the House. Therefore if Democrats get control we should pass as much as we possibly can, because we aren't going to control it for long.

[el_bryanto]

108. Well that i can totally agree with - if we had the house and senate we should

do some stuff - as much as possible anyway.

First on the docket should be restoring sanity to our tax system and then requiring redistricting to be done so as to avoid gerrymandering.

Bryant

[TheMathieu]

33. The world is not black and white. It is gray.

Pragmatism is not a choice, but a reality.

[Armstead]

36. and?

[woo me with science]

34. K&R

[JoeyT]

37. AKA: You don't start a negotiation by offering more than you're willing to pay

and hoping the other guy takes pity on you.

You offer far less than you're willing to pay, and make him come to you before you make any concessions.

Compromise isn't a dirty word. We don't object to compromise. We object to preemptive compromise.

[Armstead]

38. Yuppers. That's also why the overall agenda keeps getting pushed rightward

[stranger81]

40. I'd say the centrist, DLC strategy has worked out exactly as intended.

The problem is not that progressives disagree with the DLC contingent about just tactics.

The problem is that we disagree about fundamental goals and objectives.

[Armstead]

41. There's that too

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Ironically, those calling lefists "purists" demand pure party loyalty.

In the name of "not as bad" pragmatism.

[Skidmore]

43. This is the most adolescent spitball fight I have seen since middle school.

Everyone needs to stop nitpicking and start working together. Find some common ground before it gets jerked out from under us all.

[Armstead]

55. We have common ground of opposing the GOP..... Beyond that?

I wish there were more. I'd love to be part of one big happy family on the center-to-left side of the spectrum. Life would be much happier for ll of us.

When push comes to shove, I think most of tend to fall into alignment against the GOP.

But things continue to happen and leaders continue to do things that piss people off. That's unfortunately the reality of it.

[Skidmore]

62. Please tell me how sitting around and pigeonholing people with

insulting labels contributes to any degree of achieving common ground. It's worked so well for the conservative end of the spectrum.

[Armstead]

67. In theory I agree with you totally

I usually try to be civil and friendly with people I disagree with (here and in real life). And when people engage on that basis I reciprocate.

But, as much as I try to behave, sometimes that is difficult to do.

The OP was written in cumulative frustration at the continued condescending tendency of some to do that misleading labeling of people who dissent from the Party Line as being naive purists. Its also a response to when they inevitably follow up with the claim that acquiescence to the trends mentioned in the OP is the only "pragmatic" course.

[liberal_at_heart]

47. How's it working? Good question. I would say compromising in the name of

pragmatism is not working at all. CEOs make hundreds of times more than the average worker. Before long they will try to get rid of the minimum wage all together, and what do the democrats do? They suggest a $10/hr minimum wage. One of the government's favorite pieces of leverage with the business community is tax breaks. How about if the government offers a tax break to companies who only pay their CEO ten times as much as the average worker and a higher tax, much higher tax to companies who insist on paying their CEOs hundreds of times more than their average worker? We have to start restructuring our companies and our economy. It is unsustainable the way it is set up. It will crumble. It will die. The question is when will address the elephant in the room and what will we replace it with.

[liberal_at_heart]

48. kick.

[Loaded Liberal Dem]

60. K&R to that!

[pampango]

63. I think you are right, but that does not mean that we are.

Tea party types also believe that being a "purist" (on the other end of the spectrum, of course) is the "pragmatic" way to win elections. While I like our chances in an electoral battle of polar-opposite "purists", both sides cannot be right about the pragmatism of purism. And where would such a "battle" leave moderates?

[Armstead]

64. Well, the tea party has a lot more power than the "left"

because they have forced their issues on the "moderate" GOP establishment. So even though the nuttier tea partiers don't always win elections (though many do) they have forced the GOP to move in their direction.

And I don't think "moderates" are left out of the equation in my OP. On the contrary, many of the principles of Corporate Consrrvatism (in both parties) have become quite radical compared to the values that most individuals hold..... I don't most moderates really want us to become a Corporate Feudal Colony totally run by oligarchs -- which is the direction we've been moving in.

[pampango]

66. Well said. n/t

[jsr]

65. Recommend

[joshcryer]

75. double plus good

purists can't compromise, purists don't get anything done, they just shit on any one not pure enough

[Armstead]

76. Did you forget the sarcasm thingie, or is this serious?

[joshcryer]

78. your OP is classic double speak

[Armstead]

79. A certain amount is intentional......in response to the double speak it is a reaction to

"You disagree with me therefore you are a purist and must be considered unworthy to be included among us pragmatists.We Love Big Brother. Don't deviate."

No faction has a monopoly on self-righteousness.

(Nor I)

[joshcryer]

81. you are the one claiming pragmatists get nothing done

Sanders voted for the ACA, he's not a purist

the ACA paves the way for single payer and helps millions with the expansion of medicaid

the purists wanted the SCOTUS to overturn the ACA

[Armstead]

82. I use the work "purist" in quotes....and

Having strong beliefs in principles AND being willing to wheel and deal and compromise are not mutually exclusive.

Most of the staunchest opponents of the ADA on the left were supportive of the public option, which was already a huge compromise over their desire for single-payer system. They weren't being "purist."

But even that was taken away.

Sanders resisted the ACA and only went along when he got some concessions and passage was inevitable anyway.

[joshcryer]

83. you think, say, Obama doesn't have strong beliefs?

Sanders could've held out, the ACA passed by the slimmest possible margin, so he didn't resist in any substantive way, he could've demanded a public option but he didn't because Wyden put in a poison pill that allows states to adopt single payer

most dems have very strong beliefs, but politics isn't easy

[Armstead]

87. You're reinforcing the point I made in the OP

I didn't realize politics is not easy.

God how stupid of me. I must have had my purist binders not to see that. Jeeze I've only been paying attention since the 1970's. I guess i'm just naive.

Oh well, let's just give up and hand the whole damn country over to Wall St. and Wal mart and those lovely folks at United Healthcare.They know what's best for us, and they certainly have our best interests at heart.

[joshcryer]

98. progress is one way

the only people giving up are those who stomp their feet when they don't get their way

accusing the pragmatists of less than perfect legislation, further demoralizing the base, even though they inch us closer to our ideals

[Armstead]

99. Please enlighten me on how we have made great progress in preserving....

economic diversity and competitiveness, maintaining the middle class standard of living and opportunity for the poor, and making sure our democratic form of government is responsive to the best interests of the population.

I really want to know if you think we're in better shape on those matters than we were 30 years ago.

[joshcryer]

100. you want a purist argument?

"boohoo! the richest country in the world has an income gap! all the while they exploit the rest of the world!"

what is practical about that factual observation? should we not want to stop exploiting the developing world?

"the USA has the third highest human development index rank, population wise it has the highest number of high tier individuals on the planet!"

does that purist argument mean we shouldn't look at the income gap and close it?

it would if I was a purist and wanted to win an internet argument

[Armstead]

101. I have no clue what you are getting at

have a nice evening

[joshcryer]

102. it's easy to choose a very strong position

it's hard to compromise

[Armstead]

103. We all have to compromise every day. That's not a revelation.

We do it in our personal lives and our public lives.

And we all compromise in how we apply our values (and ideologies) to real life. No one side has a monopoly on that.

What I was getting at in my OP was that those labels of "purist" and "pragmatist" are meaningless when labeling whole groups of people.

It really just boils down to one's own handling of life, regardless of ideology or politics. One can be a self righteous butthead, or a wonderful open person, regardless of their political perspective whether one identifies as a liberal or moderate or whatever (with a few notable exceptions such as an outright fascist.)

And ideology is also ultimately irrelevant in terms of whether one is effective or ineffective or counterproductive.

People can have many different goals and/or beliefs about how to reach them. But that has no bearing on their personal qualities and level of knowledge and effectiveness in the real world. A person can be very idealistic and still be pragmatic and effective. And one can be very "realistic" and still be a bumbling idiot...And all of the infinite mixes and combinations of those in between.

One can have very strong beliefs and work hard to apply them and be effective in the real world, regardless of their ideology. Just as one can be totally amorl and results-oriented bu still be bumbling and ineffective....and vice versa.

[joshcryer]

105. You don't have to compromise on anonymous internet boards.

You can spout off all day about some very strong, but unrealistic, position. And that's what DU's 'purists' do.

They shame Obama for not fighting for single payer, but they're silent on Sanders voting for privatized health care. They don't actually get into the nuance of the thing (Sanders even said the public option wouldn't pass, nevermind single payer).

But you are correct that one can have an ideological position and compromise on it, and I think that's what Obama has done. You can read the reports about him being frustrated in office, wanting stuff to get done but stuff not working (this is one reason I wasn't very hyped for him because he came off as inexperienced).

But guess what? Obama's "compromising" is just another thing the 'purists' shit on him for.

What you don't accept is that Obama and the Democrats paved the way, hard, for single payer. States will have single payer by 2017. The direct way was impossible (ask Sanders), the indirect, poison pill way was the way forward. Just be glad that Congress people don't read the legislation they vote for.

[Armstead]

106. You have no idea what peopoe here do with their lives

I don't like to give personal info on the Interwebs, but suffice it to say I have done my share to work for my beliefs in the real world. So don'tinsurance companies when putting together the health cre reforms make assumptions and facile stereotypes when you disagree with people.

Anf if you are so offended by people "spouting off" their opinion on Internet boards, why do you bother visiting DU? It's a discussion board. That's its basic purpose.

I don't see into Obama's heart. All I know is the degree to which he has appointed people who are part of the problem to high positions -- like the bankster crowd who got us into this economic fix in the first place.

And I consider it more than a "compromise" when he and Max Baucus shut out proponents of single payer health care from the beginning while seeking the counsel of the insurance industry to design what was originally a conservative Republican health care plan.

If in 2017 a majority of states have single payer I will eat some crow. And I hope I have to. But I doubt it.

[joshcryer]

107. I post to DU for political discourse.

It's unfortunate that you choose to paint Obama and Baucus into a corner rather than discussing what actually happened. For example, Baucus wanted a public option. But he voted it down because he wanted a bill he knew could pass. BTW, Baucus did get his "health care co-operatives" because HHS mandates that at least one exchange be a non-profit (there goes the argument that you have to pay into for-profit insurance under the mandate, just more misleading BS).

There won't be a majority of states enacting single payer in 2017. But I guarantee you that the non-profit coops will beat out any for-profit insurer by spades. It's only a matter of time. For-profit runs at 20% margins, non-profit can run at 5% margins, Medicare runs at 1% margins (ie, 20%/5%/1% are the 'overhead' costs; for for-profit and some non-profit of course a lot of that overhead is lining the pockets of CEOs).

Obama's cabinet was and is a disaster, being a post-partisan / uber-bipartisen President he was all too willing to appoint Republicans into his cabinet (in fact his cabinet had more Republicans on it than any in Democratic Presidential history).

You say you can't see into Obama's heart, well, being pro-single payer is a policy position he has actually held:

Now I addressed before why Obama was afraid to push for single payer. (And most other Democrats really.)

The politifact quote:

Obama has pledged that, if elected, all Americans would have health-care coverage by the end of his first term. He has said he is reluctant to switch to a 'single-payer' national health insurance system because of the difficulty in making a quick transition from the employer-based private system.

[Armstead]

109. Political discourse is great. I'm all for that

Over the years on DU, I've had a lot of really good discussions and debates (and political arguments) with people I've disagreed with.

They were civil and subject oriented, and even friendly and humorous, without getting into personal bashing. And sometimes, those discussions have made me re-think my own positions.

That's not what I was talking about in the OP. What I am referring to -- and was referring to in the OP -- is the tendency of many to substitute honest (even strong) disagreement with attacking the personal qualities of the person holding those views, and the stereotyping of them as a group.

You (or anyone) want to tell me (or anyone) why I'm wrong on issue X, and here's why? Great. Have at it. I'll come back and tell you why i think you're wrong about it...etc. Nooooooooo problem. You wanna come back with more reasons to say I'm completely wrong and offbase about something? Fine.

None of that is a problem if you're polite and respectful about it on a personal level. Not even a problem if you criticize the politicians or other public figures i might admire.

But its a problem and not constructive or enjoyable if you (or anyone) start telling me (or anyone) that I'm naive, or don't understand reality, or don't do anything in life but punch a keyboard on the Internet or am blinded by "purist" ideology, etc.....Just as it's wrong if I automatically accuse someone of being a dumb stooge or a troll, or a professional disruptor or some other stereotype.

That's what I was getting at. I don't want to rehash the whole ACA thing here, but you brought up some good points that are certainly fodder for reasonable discussion, debate etc. That's a good thing, even if we disagree strongly on interpretation of what happened and why, and how it might have been done better...But anytime that veers off into the ad hominum attacks is when it becomes useless hot air.

[Aerows]

85. Don't worry

They don't like the first Pope in 50 or 60 years to put an emphasis on caring for the poor, either. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[Armstead]

89. The pope needs to be more "pragmatic" too

Where does he get off criticizing the Holy Corporations?

[Aerows]

90. It's just not practical in the long run

It's not like he's anybody that anyone pays attention to, anyway.

[Adam051188]

94. observations.

I like to think of a purist as somebody who thinks things can always be better, and a pragmatist as somebody who is willing to compromise to get things done. One can be both, they are not mutually exclusive. It is a function of the mind to be aware that what is better for one's self may not be better for another, however our nations was supposedly built on an idea known as "democracy". "Democracy" is the idea of majority rule. What is better for the majority of the citizenry should come to pass through the government.

Maybe it's a flaw in my personal perception, but I find more and more frequently that those self-identifying as "pragmatists" endorse policy decisions that serve to maintain a long running theme of government serving the interests of those who fund it.

[Armstead]

95. That's pretty much how i see it.

[Adam051188]

96. nice to know i'm not the only one.

I was thinking about throwing around some jabs concerning some of the other comments made here, I know how snark is so appreciated. "Democratic candidate backed by big money -- 2016 -- democrats in name only for a democracy in name only" I can see it on a bumper sticker, can you?

[Armstead]

97. I try to minmimize my snarky side -- but sometimes I can't resist.