Which is more important to you?

[Cary]

Last edited Mon Jul 24, 2017, 10:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Please, no "we can chew gum and walk at the same time schtick."

I mean I can't stop anyone but I can say I'm not interested in those statements. This is my thought experiment and I set out these two choices as an either/or so that I can guage the response. If you are morally opposed for some reason, feel free to not respond. I mean I could put up a "neither" option but what's the point?

I feel strongly that winning elections is more important than allowing unfettered and undisciplined expression of ideological purity. Don't worry, I have no power to impose that on anyone and no intent of ever trying. It's just an internet discussion board, okay?

Your cooperation is appreciated.

6 votes, 4 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Alllowing unfettered and undisciplined expression of ideological purity
	1 (17%)
	Winning elections
	5 (83%)
	4 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[zipplewrath]

1. We never would have desegregated the party

If all we ever cared about was winning elections, we never would have forcibly desegregated the state party structures. We did it because how and why you win is more important than winning.

[Cary]

4. Prove it

I don't believe that for a minute and I find the comparison between civil rights activists and contemporary radicals to be highly insulting.

[zipplewrath]

33. We knew the risk we were taking

The reason LBJ was the VP for Kennedy was because he need to shore up his support in southern states, especially Texas, to counter the Dixiecrat party that sprung up after we forcibly desegregated the party. They actually got a few EC votes that year. The reason Kennedy was in Dallas was because he was in fear of losing the state in the next election. Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms were democrats until we forcibly desegregated the party. It was the beginning of a sea change in national politics and has cost us elections over the years. But I'm not prepared to say it was wrong. The point is, that the measure of whether something should be done/supported/advocated is not the measure of how it will help us win an election, but whether it is worthy of our support.

[Gothmog]

9. The GOP Southern Strategy was a GOP concept

The desegregation of state parties was due more to the concept that the GOP was successful with its Southern Strategy. The Texas Democratic Party used to be dominant but was composed of two segments-the liberal/civil rights wing and the Dixiecrats who left the party to become the GOP. The TDP adopted some liberal concepts such as getting the Equal Rights Amendment ratified in Texas. However, the Nixon GOP Southern Strategy lead to the split of the party.

Right now, we need to win and that means accepting some blue dogs who can get elected in Red states.

[George II]

13. What does one have to do with the other?

[zipplewrath]

32. We occasionally have to risk losing

We can't just always do "what ever it takes to win". Some times you have to risk losing because it is the right thing to do.

[JCanete]

2. If the second leads to winning elections at the cost of standing for something,

then it doesn't matter who wins the election. The D has to actually mean something. People so eagerly willing to vote for the latter take as a given that without actually holding our own leadership's feet to the fire, the D will always just naturally be better. As if history shows that. You can't clamp down on criticism and unfettered expression and come out of it with a democratic product that represents the people. Any time you stifle criticism you open the door for paternalism and authoritarianism. There's already a party for people okay with that. That won't do us any favors on this side of the spectrum, and because of the makeup of the Democratic voter base, I highly doubt that our public disagreements within our party are more detrimental to our success than they are retentive of our membership.

The idealogical purity criticism continues to be a false one anyway. It isn't about what we can ultimately get. Everybody seems to be willing to take what we can get when we can get it. Sanders has shown that time and time again, he will sign onto less than perfect legislation. It is about what we try to get. It is about what we go after and promote to the American people in order to make those political impossibilities possible. How is that ideological purity? Why are these the people we need to shut up, in order to cater to the lowest common (D)nominator, like Manchin's of the party?

[Cary]

3. boring

[JCanete]

5. what a fucking embarrassing response. Why pose a question if you don't want to engage in it?

Do you have an intelligent way of refuting anything I just said?

[Cary]

8. It was direct, to the point, and succinct

Obviously you understood it well enough. There's an art to making one word arguments. Thanks for making my point.

[JCanete]

10. what I got out of it was that you didn't have an intelligent counterargument, so settled on petty.

If that was what you wanted to convey, then job well done.

[Cary]

12. I see. My error.

Please excuse me for responding to you.

[R B Garr]

6. boring and incredibly self-defeating and unrealistic.

If it's not perfection (and perfection according to only those self-appointed deciders), then no one can have anything. It's beyond bizarre.

[Cary]

7. And presumptuous

Who appointed anyone to be arbiter of ideological purity?

[JCanete]

11. good job...put up a straw man you have no evidence for in anything I've said, and then have a circle

jerk.

[R B Garr]

15. This was an actual quote from an actual post....

"No, simply making sure Democrats...any democrat....gets elected, is not our fucking job. Our job is to make sure our party is a good one. Otherwise, there's no goddamn point to getting them elected."

Just an fyi, though it looks like you've seen the same head-scratching standards.

[JCanete]

23. since you're quoting me, what does that quote mean to you that you object to? nt

[sheshe2]

19. Purity and or Perfection

They do not exist in the real world. That is a fact. You ask who the arbiter of said purity or perfection would be? Well it would have to be a human being, who themselves would not be perfect, because Perfection and Purity do not exist as I said above.

In an imperfect world I will go for the win every time and then work hard to make that win blossom and expand.

The way we do this is get out and vote. Vote Democratic every step of the way.

Thank you Cary, excellent OP.

[Cary]

21. Thanks She!

Now if we could only get you know who to Vote Democratic!

[sheshe2]

25. We will persist!

[brer cat]

29. Yes we will.

[sheshe2]

31. :)

[leftstreet]

20. +1

[Cary]

14. In spite of some discord and discontent here, it appears we want to win elections.

Good news.

[gilbert sullivan]

17. Duh. Absent that, now and then,

nothing else about this much matters, does it?

[gilbert sullivan]

16. Are you suggesting the two choices are irrevocably

and mutually exclusive?

If so, why?

[Cary]

18. I find Chuck Schumer today to be demoralizing

I am interested in policy, not ideological purity.

[leftstreet]

27. He's a politician, not a counselor

It's his job to determine and implement strategy in meeting party/platform goals

[Cary]

28. You're an anonymous poster on an internet board

[leftstreet]

22. LOL 'unfettered and undisciplined' n/t

[Cary]

24. Cry

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. Win first, evolve second.

[brer cat]

30. *This* nt