You CANNOT be both a Purist and a Pragmatist.

[jazzimov]

By "Purist", I mean anyone who applies any type of purity test. The Teabaggers fall in this category, because they are running candidates against Republicans who are not "Conservative" enough. These extremists may win the primary, but their own extremism will turn off many in the General Election.

The Teabaggers are passionate, but they are a "small tent".

Anyone who is a Purist belongs to a small tent.

Although being a "pure" Ideologue may make one feel better, no one can make change unless they first get elected.

We need a Big Tent. We need to get people elected in places where people do not necessarily agree with us on everything. THAT is being Pragmatic.

Complaining that Democrats are DINO's or Blue Dogs or DLC is not productive during elections. Nor is it pragmatic.

[seabeyond]

1. i probably agree you cannot be a purist and pragmatic. i say probably...

Last edited Fri Feb 14, 2014, 09:54 AM - Edit history (1)

because i am open to someone proving otherwise. i do not see it though

[el_bryanto]

23. Perhaps if you put Purism and Pragmatism on a scale;

you can't be 100% a purist and still be pragmatic and you can't be 100% a pragmatist and be a purist - but you could be maybe 70% pure and 30% pragmatic?

Bryant

[seabeyond]

25. i believe stating only 70% alone, makes it impure, sure by only 30%, by the very

definition of purity.

purity is one of those words of all or nothing. not so much pragmatist. now... i can see the pragmatic self being able to fit in with SOME purity. but purity is a constant, consistent, so there would be times of conflict. one would have to hold to purity and dump pragmatic.

[el_bryanto]

26. That makes sense; there are issues where you can't compromise

and on those you would be 100% purist.

Bryant

[NuclearDem]

41. 70% pure kinda seems like an oxymoron.

[JI7]

2. i think some people just enjoy complaining and see that as activism

teabaggers are mainly racists and stupid. they think the reason they are losing is because republicans haven't impeached obama.

they view boehner as being liberal because he does not hate obama enough. i saw complaints about how boehner was smiling and clapping the whole time during the SOTU.

[sabrina 1]

18. I apologize for 'complaining' about things like torture and drones and spying on the American people

I'm sorry for complaining that war criminals and Wall St criminals are not held accountable for their crimes.

I'm sorry for complaining about the destruction of the Public School System.

I'm sorry for complaining about bailing out Corporate Criminals while doing nothing for their victims.

I'm sorry for thinking that Bush policies STINK and for hoping for changing those policies after we elected Democrats.

I'm sorry for thinking that the Rule of Law applied to EVERYONE.

I must be a purist.

Did you know that the word 'purist' is part of a talking point program from some Third Way Think Tank invented to attack Liberals with?

There are several others, probably all paid for around 2004 when they first appeared to slam Liberals with.

If you'd like the rest of the list of those Liberal Bashing Talking points, phrases, words, let me know.

I'm thinking that we Liberal Democrats need to start using then AGAINST the infiltrators of our Party.

So, does this OP mean you would like to invite more 'moderate Republicans' into the Big Tent?

I thought the Big Tent was to include people in the political arena who had been excluded for so long, WOMEN, MINORITIES etc.

I didn't know until recently that the Big Tent was for Republicans too. I thought they had their own party.

How 'purist' of me. Talking points emanating from 'think tanks' are always so recognizable. Did you ever notice that ordinary people use their OWN words, they don't talk like robots using words fed to them by Think Tanks.

Just my opinion, but then I am a proud PURIST.

[JI7]

19. such a revolutionary

[AgingAmerican]

33. Some people just cannot understand

why other people wont lie down and take it.

[Warpy]

3. A pragmatist looks at a pet project that has had too many unintended consequences

and says "Shit, that didn't work out like I thought it would, time to try something else."

A purist just keeps on bulling forward, seemingly blind to all the untoward consequences.

[JI7]

4. that's not really purist as much as stubborn and ignorant like teabaggers

who think they lost because mccain and romney were liberals.

[Warpy]

9. It's stubborn but that's often one of the defining qualities of a purist

They're convinced of their dogma's infallibility and must rigidly and stubbornly carry it out.

It's not ignorant like the teabagger base. It's more on the level of the few paleocons out there like George Will. They know the country's going down the pan, they're not stupid. Their dogmatic purity just makes them blame liberals who went out of power in 1969 and never got back in.

You'd think that after 45 years of their ideas put into practice they'd be willing to admit at least a few failures, that blaming people long gone no longer worked and what they needed to do is take a little responsibility for the system of corporate monopoly and wealth concentration and complete loss of hope in this country they provided. Yet they're too dogmatically rigid to do this.

That's a purist, folks. We've got them on our side, too, but they're a lot less visible these days.

[TheMathieu]

5. When I'm craving 3 pieces of chocolate, I'll settle for one if that's all that's lying around. nt

[sheshe2]

6. Well done, TheMathieu! n/t

[WorseBeforeBetter]

52. And end up with the nasty Cranberry Orange Nougat. (n/t)

[sheshe2]

7. You got Bingo!

Thanks jazz!

[Gravitycollapse]

8. You cannot be a purist and pragmatic unless it becomes pragmatic to be a purist.

[Heidi]

15. Gravitycollapse for the win.

[freshwest]

10. The FDR Democratic majority that rule=d DC for year was certainly not purists and had a lot people i

in that tent whose views we utterly despise today. But they gave us the progressive era and moved the country to the left in profound ways.

If we are the majority, the less liberal can be convinced to do the right thing by their fellows in DC. For too long the voters have been so far to the right, that only a wealk liberal can get their votes.

But when they get into DC, they can hide in the liberal crowd from RWers at home and vote liberal. The GOP knows this, which is why they want NO Democrats elected ANYWHERE.

They know our platform and record better than some Democrats. And they only way to stop us is to keep us a minority, or do their one-party state rule that they are always pushing for anyway they can.

[Armstead]

11. It's all really just a spectrum and matter of definitions

As someone who started a thread on that, giving an example of what i ws talking about.

No one is a pure purist nor a pure pragmatist. We're all a mix to varying degrees.

Politically, people who may have strong ideals (i.e. purists) also try to act effectively according to what they believe in. Whether they are actually effective or ineffective or sorta kinda is totally situational. Maybe it succeeds a little bit at one time, maybe it's overwhelmingly successful another time, etc.

What really matters is what you believe, what you want to accomplish and how hard you want to work at it. No one has a monopoly on that in any ideology. One can be a really dumb and ineffective progressive or a very effective one. Or a dumb and ineffective moderate and centrist or a really effective one.

We all have beliefs and basic principles. And we try to act according to those. And sometimes it "works" and sometimes it doesn't. And the definition of "works" is also subject to interpretation and what the goals are.

[Fumesucker]

12. So you are saying that someone who is not pragmatic enough fails your purity test?

[grahamhgreen]

13. False dichotomy + straw man FAIL. The arguments are about the issues:

My guess is you will be unwilling to state your positions (for/against) on the following.

War with syria

the TPP

Medicare for all

Chained CPI

Taxing the wealthiest persons (People and corps) at pre-Reagan levels.

Please prove me wrong

False Dichotomy

The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed when the arguer claims that his conclusion is one of only two options, when in fact there are other possibilities.

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Examples of Straw Man

Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."

There is no one arguing for purity vs pragmatism. We are arguing for positions. Can you?

[Recursion]

14. I dunno. William Bradford?

Oh, purist...

[phleshdef]

16. I've gotten to the point where I think "purist" is a meaningless term.

There are a lot of different types of folks who support the Democratic party and are left on most issues, left on half of the issue or just left on some of the more important issues.

On top of that, sometimes what people think is "right wing" really isn't and sometimes what people think is "left wing" really isn't. And some things are full of a million gray areas.

I think being able to recognize that last part is what really distinguishes a liberal from a conservative more than specific policy positions sometimes.

Anyway, I don't think there really is a "pure" liberal/progressive policy platform. I think there are some core goals that we all mostly have in common, but getting there and the value of certain legislative progressions differ greatly among the different little camps we seem to have.

[woo me with science]

17. "I think there are some core goals that we all mostly have in common, but getting there..."

No, you are mistaken. That is the Third Way lie to the electorate, and where the propaganda invariably falls apart. It is an impossible position to be in, to have to claim to support certain goals and values, while simultaneously needing to attack policy and candidates that actually represent them.

It can only result in lots of spitting, snarling, and rofl smilies to compensate for the utter lack of coherence.

The Third Way is a Koch-bankrolled, deliberate infiltration of the Democratic Party to serve corporate interests. They have *never* shared the same goals as traditional Democrats.

When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556

When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432

GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116

The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121

They are not centrists. They are building corporate fascism.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024222542#post2

[treestar]

30. Good point, the purist type post we see on DU

Mostly seem to complain about the system; it's not efficient enough to get us what we want quickly. It allows others to stand in the way. Then blaming those who get elected for not doing things "right" becomes a way to relieve feelings.

Then accusing those who recognize reality as really being conservative and not supporting the progressive goals occurs - that is the more unreasonable and unfair end of the frustration expression. It raises hackles and causes disruption.

[joshcryer]

20. You can be a purist who compromises. But the non-compromising would shit on you.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. On DU both words are misued by folks who don't care about the meanings or accuracy of

their chosen words. 'Pragmatist' is most often used as a compliment toward one's self or one's fellows 'I'm a Pragmatist, so I know only Civil Unions are possible, marriage equality is impossible for generations'. 'Purist' is most often used as an insult toward others which as used simply means 'I don't agree with you'.
In actual fact, both words have specific meanings, and neither apply to any DU poster I have read or to any person I have met. An example would be this OP, which uses the term of art 'Pragmatist' as a sort of test of purity. The OP imposes it's own test of 'purity' using a term so vaguely defined that it basically means 'agree with me you are good, disagree you are not'.
It's just wanking and name calling.

[el_bryanto]

22. This seems foolish; how are we supposed to encourage our representatives to

represent us better if we can't take them to task for their actions? If they act like conservatives we need to tell them to stop acting like conservatives.

Bryant

[treestar]

29. Why not simply tell them what your opinion is and

attempt to convince them it is what is best for everyone? Taking them to task smacks of accusing them of immorality for disagreeing with you.

[el_bryanto]

34. Yes - because they are supposed to represent those people who elected them

If someone runs as a liberal and agrees to uphold liberal policies but then governs more as a corporatist, they are behaving immorally.

Bryant

[treestar]

40. One has to govern with the other branches and powers

That is another question. And they merely disagree with you. Convincing them won't work when you start with some sort of "you are a bad person for disagreeing with me" thing. They may not even disagree with you. They disagree about methods rather than the policy.

[el_bryanto]

42. I'm not arguing that we should insult them; I'm saying we should pressure them into doing the

right thing. Yes - they might disagree on what the right thing is; but i'm still going to push for them to govern in the way that I want them too. And I think everybody should do the same.

Bryant

[Capt. Obvious]

48. "attempt to convince them it is what is best for everyone?"

Should have been preceded by, "Cut massive checks in an -"

[treestar]

58. Accusing them of that is not going to get them on your side

and if you're that cynical about others, then all you can do is find as much money as possible.

[Capt. Obvious]

68. I know that's not going to get them on my side

Money will. Lots of money. That's how it works.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. I tell them that how they vote determines how I vote.

It seems to get their attention.

[justiceischeap]

24. At first I read this as: You CANNOT be both a Purist & a Polygamist.

And you'd be right if that's what you'd actually written.

[loyalsister]

27. You can be a purist in spirit and a pragmatist in practice

Some call it holding their nose.

[treestar]

28. Exactly, politics is about working with others to get along

and make a peaceful society in spite of disagreement - within the bounds of reason. It's not about setting oneself and one's opinion up as the only acceptable way - that kind of thinking leads to burning others at the stake, if not literally, figuratively. That's why you see the purists wondering when there will be "rioting in the streets." They want to see violence against those with whom they have political disagreements.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. In English, the word 'purist' connonates conservatism, in that a purist is prone to oppose

changes to the status quo, a purist is a traditionalist, a literalist, a formalist. Webster says '"a person who adheres strictly and often excessively to a tradition"
The term is always, by it's nature, subjective in that the person using the word is determining what the standards are, what is an adulteration of the practice and what is the practice in it's pure state. Outside of DU and odd political corners, the word is rarely used about politics, an area that lacks strong metrics for purity and adulteration and is most commonly used around language and the arts, sports and crafts. Vegans are purist vegetarians. You are something of a purist Democrat, I assume, as am I in that I would never vote for a Republican and would see that as an adulteration of my politics. For people in a Partisan place such as DU to whine about 'purists' is pretty funny, because to be a partisan is to be a type of purist. Purely Democratic. Exclusive of Republicans.
When I read folks toss out that term as an insult, I have to remind myself that they do not understand the word and that they are not really saying they vote for some Republicans.
Do you vote for Republicans or are you a purist when voting?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

50. That is not what 'purist' means in English

[Bluenorthwest]

53. Yes it is. Look it up.

1. a person who insists on absolute adherence to traditional rules or structures.
synonyms: pedant, perfectionist, formalist, literalist, stickler, traditionalist, doctrinaire, quibbler, dogmatist;

[Pretzel_Warrior]

55. I did look it up. It does not connote conservatism. It connotes staying with a rigid structure

With no allowance for ventures off of that path. A "traditional" progressive could say a true and pure plank of that platform is to reject any and all trade agreements as, in their minds, it hurts labor and those in domestic agriculture.

Those people are not conservatives by any stretch, but they are purists about what it means to be a "good" Democrat and hold to progressive ideals.

[Bluenorthwest]

63. Yes, it most certainly does.

adjective: conservative

1. holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion

pur·ist


1. a person who insists on absolute adherence to traditional rules or structures, esp. in language or style.

synonyms: pedant, perfectionist, formalist, literalist, stickler, traditionalist, doctrinaire, quibbler, dogmatist;


Note the similarity in the definitions. Note that you offer only stuff you are making up.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

67. New York Times column discusses Democratic purists

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/the-purists/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

"getting the holier-than-thou purists of his party to realize they have to govern every now and then".

P.S. purity usually spells extinction. Take a look at the main antagonist in this piece, Kucinich.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

69. The New Republic discusses liberal purists on tax deal and Obamacare

http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/79844/liberal-purists-and-the-tax-deal

Also good discussion on what the problem with purists is when trying to advance any governance or agenda--especially when the guy you are attacking (Obama) is being viciously savaged on both the right and the left for doing one of the few center-of-the-road options he could do in the political environment.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

70. The coup de grace--a liberal Kucinich supporter on DU in 2004

Referring to Kucinich supporters as liberal purists

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x342325

What is more fascinating is in 2004, people were at least hypothetically willing to give a Democratic president some leeway when compromising with Republicans.

Of course, we know how that really turned out.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

59. Oh, yes, the Bush/Cheney brand of politics was all about getting along.

And look at what those two bastards "accomplished."

Why is it that Democrats are expected to show such compromise with their principles, opinions, positions, ideals, etc.?

P.S.: "Tolerance" isn't an acceptable reply.

[PowerToThePeople]

31. Well

We need to get people elected in places where people do not necessarily agree with us on everything. THAT is being Pragmatic.

I agree with this. But, they can not become the voice of the party. They need to get in line behind Democratic principles.

Two examples, which do we have? Which do we want?

1) Someone who runs under the guise of Liberal "change" and then acts as a Republican.

2) Someone who runs with moderate republican ideas in a red state and then acts like a liberal in practice.

Number 2 is preferred over number 1 imo. Actions speak louder than words.

[QC]

35. You cannot engage in a meaningful discussion

with empty buzzwords and canned insults.

Sadly, that's how the words "purist" and "pragmatist" are generally used around here.

There are very few people here who are not willing to accept incremental progress. The debate usually centers on whether a policy does, in fact, represent progress.

To use a metaphor that popped up elsewhere in this thread, is the chocolate on offer actually chocolate, or is it a turd in a Godiva box?

[Bluenorthwest]

36. So extremely spot on.....

nt

[QC]

37. Thanks! n/t

[frwrfpos]

38. if there are no purity tests then anyone of any persuasion can join the party

do you mean Big tent as in anybody that believes anything and supports anything can be a Democrat?

Can I say I believe in purple dinosaurs with laser on their heads and call myself a Democrat?
How about can I say I love Capitalism and free trade and the TPP and droning people and war and profiting off of people and call myself a Democrat?

[sabrina 1]

43. What this means, all this talk of 'purity' that's been going on for years now, is that Republicans l

are welcome in the Dem Party and those 'lieberals with their crazy, non-pragmatic ideas', better get used to it!

Their disdain for the actual Liberal side of the aisle is becoming less and less subtle as they feel more and more successful at the goal to push the Corporate agenda.

They've been trying this talking point for years now, using the same old silly phrases, 'purity troll' 'concern troll' and the most overused and least understood word on the internet, 'pragmatism' not to mention 'reality based community' among other equally silly bought and paid for words, phrases, whatever they can dig up to slam non-Corporatist Democrats wiwth, which is how you know they are merely talking points handed out to try to get us used to having ONE CORPORATE PARTY with Two Wings.

How ideal for the Corporate entities who are speeding up the complete takeover of our political system. After all, they are spending a whole lot of money to buy the 'Right' candidates for their purposes, and here WE are saying 'hey, 'you Right Wingers have your OWN party. That's what they mean by 'purist' .

Which is why I am proud to be one.

[noiretextatique]

54. bingo

spot on, always. vote for us...then STFU about that we are doing.

[reddread]

39. You CANNOT cure Cancer with Cough Syrup.

can you?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Those who call Leftists "purists" also call for "pure" party loyalty.

How does that work?

[cali]

46. ah, the smell of hypocrisy richly wafting through DU.

[whatchamacallit]

47. Exactly, +1, n/t

[cali]

45. well that was silly.

you are actually claiming that those who criticize democrats in an election year are "purists".

That's ridiculous and contemptible.

and it's a lame attempt to shut people up.

Won't work.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

51. You made that logical leap. Not the op.

Even pragmatists can complain about actions their party or president takes. The purist are often the uncompromising unreasonable fringe of both extremes in ideology.

[cali]

56. I certainly did not. the op says exactly that in the OP

I think you need a remedial reading for comprehension course as well as one in critical thinking. to say neither is your forte, is to be kind.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. Where do you get this stuff?

The Ann Coulter Dictionary?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

65. The echo chambers of Cesca, People's View, The Obama Diary, Smartypants...

there's no deviation in their thought whatsoever. And they bring it to DU, where it gets chewed up and spit out, thankfully.

It'll be interesting to see what tack these Crap Blogs will take in 2016, depending on who wins the White House. Seems that some haven't come to terms with the fact that it won't be Obama...

[Bluenorthwest]

66. It's big time ignorance, that's for sure.

Not ready for the adult table.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

49. You are correct

[KT2000]

57. Isn't a purist a fundamentalist?

Being a purist or fundamentalist is an ego exercise. That indeed is a small tent.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

62. Yes. Another great way to put it.

[Union Scribe]

64. So your purity test is whether someone is a purist.

I guess you failed.