It's Time to Stop Being Hit - must read

[Andromeda]

It's Time to Stop Being Hit
By Michael Moore
Michael Moore.com

Monday 13 December 2004

Dear Friends,

It is no surprise that the Republicans are sore winners. They have spent the better part of the past month beating their chests, threatening to send to Siberia any Republican who doesn't toe the line (poor Arlen Specter), and promising everything short of martial law if the Democrats don't do what they are told.

What's worse is to watch the pathetic sight of the DLC (the conservative, pro-corporate group of Democrats) apologizing for being Democrats and promising to "purge" the party of the likes of, well, all of US! Their comments are so hilarious and really not even worth recognizing but the media is paying so much attention to them, I thought it might be worth doing a little reality check.

The most people the DLC is able to get out to an event of theirs is about 200 at their annual dinner (where you have to pay thousands of dollars to get in).

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604W.shtml

Michael Moore is telling Democrats to stop being enablers. He's saying the Democratic party leadership is taking us down the wrong road and we need to stop apologizing for being the party of the people!

We need to take our party back! How did we get into this mess? Well, it took years for the Republicans to bully their way into complete and total power.

They did it by cheating, by stealing and probably by having enemies "taken care of."

[saracat]

1. Yet Mike says nothing about a "stolen election" and doing anything about

overturning it. Mike has drunk the koolaid. He thinks Bush won. I thought he was playing with us. I was wrong. He believes it.

[necso]

2. "Party of the people" --

I certainly agree that the Democrats should be (and are) this.

But when you are the party of the people, sometimes you have to go along with what the people want -- as opposed to doing (and saying) (in all cases) what you think is "good" (or "right") for them -- or what you think that they want.

For example, most people support conservation of the environment, at least when it is posed as a generality. But talk about potential job losses, restriction of access rights, higher prices, raising taxes, the "need" to exploit certain mineral resources, etc and support erodes, particularly in local areas (say where many loggers or mill workers sit idle).

The people are not a homogeneous mass, and the issues that tend to get focused on are those that split the Democratic Party. And while we can "defocus" these issues to some extent, they won't simply go away. So we can either insist on some litmus test on these issues for our candidates, be tolerant of differing policies, or change our policies.

Right now there is a battle going on for the future of the Party. Unfortunately, this battle is being carried on in terms of "left" versus "right" (or "center") instead of over specific policy issues -- and deciding how much tolerance on these issues the Party should maintain.

Our opponents, the neocons, have it easy in this regard, as the great bulk of their "followers" support them no matter what (although many of these "followers" see themselves as supporting "their" party, not the neocons). And with the fundies acting as the neocon foot soldiers in return for a few promises -- and with the corporatists funding them as long as the neocons support business anarchy, corporate welfare and unlimited cheap labor (etc -- the "crony free market" system), the neocons don't have to worry much about carrying out their agenda (which is compatible with the corporatists' agenda in any case -- and with anything that the neocons perceive as helping Israel).

The Democrats, on the other hand, have a much wider and demanding range of supporters, and it is hard to satisfy them all... Particularly when the national "discussion" is focused on those issues that drive us apart, and is conducted in terms like "liberal" and "conservative", which immediately supercharges the debate.

And in all this (and more) lies the rub.

But "populism" is the way to go, I think. However, is this "populism" to be something arising from the people and directed by the Democratic Party? -- Or is to be some form of "populism" (or any policy really) that is forced on the Party by one group or another?

Personally, I fear that it will be the latter -- and I believe that this is a recipe for further disaster.

And it is long since time that we used professional advertisers to "sell" our "image" (on other than the local level anyway). All this "unprofessional stuff" (that is, "work" not done by first rate marketing types) is not having the impact that the dollars spent on it warrant. And the same thing applies to most campaign (and other) national efforts. It is great (and necessary) to use volunteers or sometimes to fall in with various "leaders" or "pioneers". -- But are the best types of tools, people and organizations being effectively utilized by us in these efforts? I think not.

Our problem is complex. If we use one narrow lens or the other to view it, we are not really looking for solutions, we are looking to force some particular (narrow) viewpoint on the problem.

And how is this different from what the fundies are doing? -- Disregarding the particulars of the mindset of course -- and an arguable degree of detachment from reality.

[rodeodance]

3. some look forward--others try to fix the past---We need both