This is a general observation. It dees not fit every instance

[Tom Rinaldo]

Last edited Tue May 2, 2017, 06:21 PM - Edit history (1)

We all know what wedge issues are, generically. They are issues that are intentionally exploited (that is the key word here) in order to create disunity within a larger voting block so as to enable opponents of that block to prevail during elections.

Effective wedge issues have roots in reality(s). The exploitation comes about when some intentionally drive up the temperature during discussions about those issues within groups of people who usually support candidates of the same political party during elections. Their use as a wedge becomes most apparent when erstwhile allies end up at each other's throats fighting, and maligning, each other - shifting focus away from their previously common political adversaries.

We all can identify strands of the overall Democratic Coalition voting block. One doesn't need an advanced political science degree to do so. Wedge practitioners would seek to divide us along fault lines specific to them. Lately I've noticed a pronounced uptick in more blatantly negative references to Democratic figures or activists based on gender, race, education and economic status, and geographic residency. Since we are not a Republican site, attempts to use wedge issues to undermine Democratic unity by attacking, for example, women and minority rights is more likely to unify us than divide us.

What can work better here for anyone with an intent to exploit wedge issues against Democratic unity, are attacks on members of the Democratic Coalition voting block over the failure to defend women and minority rights etc - since Democrats rightly agree in principle on the importance of that.

We are Democrats, we argue about issues, always have and always will. We don't check in our view points at the door. I am proud of Democrats for that. What is starting to disturb me though is an increased number of posts and threads written by DU members with relatively low post counts (below a few thousand) that work in specific digs at others over gender, race, locality, and class etc.

One thing I have long known to be true is that one of the most effective ways of promoting divisiveness is to accuse others of it. Recognizing that, I am commenting here only in general terms, fully acknowledging that we all have valid differences to explore over issues, and sometimes even over personalities, within our Democratic coalition. I am not specifically accusing anyone of anything - I know full well that some of the people here with whom I sometimes have some sharp to the point of adversarial exchanges happen to be some of the most committed and effective Democratic activists on the planet.

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. I'm bumping this once for the evening crowd

I'm not looking for a discussion so much (though that's fine if it happens) as much as wanting a few more people to hopefully read this and keep it in mind moving forward, if it seems unity starts further disintegrating around here.

[ehrnst]

2. I've seen lots of long, long time members talking about gender, race, locality and class, etc.

For a long time.

They are not trolls, and perhaps you are not aware of the discussions in groups of the bigotry and privilege that are expressed even here at DU.

One way to promote diviseness is to use terms like "clearly progressive" then backpedal when asked to define that term.

Yes, Democrats agree in principle on social justice issues, which is why we are very aware of them, and sensitive to them. But privilege and bigotry are not exempt from the left, as we see here daily.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. I didn't say they were trolls

In fact I made a point of saying I have sharp differences with some people here on DU who I know are among the most committed and effective Democratic activists on the planet. That is after saying that my observation was general and did not apply in every instance.

And of course there is some bigotry and privilege expressed on the left and on DU, I never implied otherwise.

I believe you are referring to my post on another thread here when you say "One way to promote diviseness is to use terms like "clearly progressive" then backpedal when asked to define that term."

Again I made a point of not calling out anyone personally for being divisive. I flat out didn't. I didn't even come close. But you just did with me. So for those following along at home, here is that post I made where it is implied that I was promoting divisiveness, in it or in my followups to it:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9004713

You all can decide for yourself

[Wounded Bear]

3. K & R ...... nt

[ehrnst]

5. This is what I was responding to in your posts:

What is starting to disturb me though is an increased number of posts and threads written by DU members with relatively low post counts (below a few thousand) that work in specific digs at others over gender, race, locality, and class etc.

I believe that your inference was that they were here with an agenda that is troll-esque.

I was saying that there are posts written by DU members of long standing that are posting concerning social justice priorities that have been discussed in the news lately. Many have been accused of merely "digging" when they are making valid points about said public statements.

Is that clearer?

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. My inference was that some might be. Emphasis on "some" and "might"

I tried to make clear that just because an issue can be used by some with ill intent as a "wedge issue" that doesn't mean that it does not remain a valid issue. Real Democrats can have real concerns related to them. I wrote:

"Effective wedge issues have roots in reality". Clearly they do. They need to be debated, but yes there will always be some who intentionally attempt to push such debates towards deep schisms that hobble coalitions. Why on earth wouldn't there be? We know those types are active. DU regularly exposes and removes genuine trolls. It is part of the political world we live in.

[YoungDemCA]

6. Mainstream liberalism is getting increasingly out of touch with people who aren't "woke."

And those people generally aren't college educated and well-off. Is it any wonder why Democrats are in embarrassingly terrible shape at all levels of government?

[ehrnst]

7. Can you be more specific about the "embarassingly terrible shape" Dems are in at "all levels"

of government?

[YoungDemCA]

8. Presidency, Supreme Court, both houses of Congress, majority of state legislatures+Governorships...

[ehrnst]

9. So you are saying that the results of the last election where state servers were hacked

are actually the result of something else?

[YoungDemCA]

10. The election results were the results of hacks?

I've heard that claim, but have seen no evidence of it.

[ehrnst]

11. I've heard about evidence. So what do you think caused these results

that you described?

[YoungDemCA]

12. From page 7 of the US intelligence community's report:

Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards. DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

[ehrnst]

15. Again.... So what do you think caused these results that you described?

To be clear: Presidency, Supreme Court, both houses of Congress, majority of state legislatures+Governorships..

Specifically.