Will Progressives, Liberals, Greens, Democrats ever = Solidarity?

[AVID]

A very broad question, but what will it take?

If yes, what one common issue/ goal can link an indestructible chain?

[3days]

1. I was thinking about this as well

I thought that the war would do it but apparently not. I am hopeful that chimps next war (the American economy) will be the spark. I'm not sure.

[IStriker]

2. No

[3days]

3. Yeah I guess I was kidding myself a bit on that

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

4. Perhaps.

But first, a lot of people will have to reflect upon the phrase "for the good of the nation".

Right now, we, as a political bloc, seem to be stiff with uncompromising, self-serving types. I have been victimized by them, personally. They are there, the exist in profusion andthey are using our outrage and desire for change and improvement as their personal vehicle for what they perceive as success.

[stray cat]

5. Only if we decide to fight the real enemy and get back in power.

[ClayZ]

15. Nationwide Jan 20 Protest links here!

http://www.notinourname.net/archive/20jan05-actions.htm

[brainshrub]

6. Easy answer to a broad question:

Liberal Values. It's that simple.

The values that unite Conservatives are:

Fear of punishment
Power
Greed
Nationalism

As messed-up as these values are, they allow corporations and religious Christan fundamentalists to share the same party. (Back in the 60's these two groups hated each other.) Every aspect of the Republican party is, ultimately, based on one of these values. It is the glue that makes the conservatives march in lock-step.

Liberals have values that we can unite around as well. According to Lakoff, some of these are:

Freedom
Prosperity
Community
Empathy
Responsibility
Trust
Open-communication

We can unite under these values and create far more good for the world than the conservatives ever will.

[3days]

7. That's true

But I recently recieved an e-mail from another party about a Governors race and how it is looking so tight between the two of them that this third party could be a "spoiler".
What the hell is that?
Individual partys are too concerned with moving their party and therefore their name in the lead that they have fogotten the "big picture" and in effect what is best for everyone who shares pretty much the same view.

[Cats Against Frist]

18. You (or Lakoff) forgot Authoritarianism and Absolutism,

as well as the "Totalitarian brain," which very much bring together the strict-father conservatism with the overtly religious. It's not necessarily fear of punishment, it's fear of "the other." "The other" getting over on them, in any way. These are the psychological things that draw them together -- and nationalism isn't strictly a right-wing thing, either.

AND, I would argue that "responsiblity" is part of the Republican program, but it's more like "responsibility for other people," or that the only people who get hit with the "personal responsibility" zinger, happen to be associated with the welfare state -- this doesn't include child abusers, corporations, people who indoctrinate their children with closed-minded bullshit, the wealthy, the church, etc. It's that "other" that needs to get personal responsibility -- the "libruls" and the "welfare cheats."

[brainshrub]

20. Some thoughts.

Not disagreeing with you, but something you should consider.

Patriotism & nationalism are opposite psychological worldviews. A patriot is not scared to listen to, and express, criticism of the government. This is a world-view that values open communication.
A nationalist is someone who considers criticism as dangerous to the society at large. This is a fear-of-punishment value.

I suspect that authoritarianism is an symptom of a fear-of-punishment worldview. (Strict-father worldview.)

[robbedvoter]

8. It was last wasted on someone like Kerry who shrugged it away

ABB was awesome. And won too. It won't happen again - not in many years - when a true revolution will start (100 years? 1000? who knows?)
Common issue - freedom.

[Wind Dancer]

13. Well said!

[ulysses]

9. when the party decides

that it wants that coalition - and stops talking about stupid shit in an attempt to attract Republicans - then it might happen. But probably not until then.

[jonnyblitz]

10. i knew your link would go to that thread.

:thumbsup:

[sandnsea]

11. I understand your point

People who are discussing SS changes right now are annoying the hell out of me. Right now is the time to call Bush on his dismantling of the program. We can't do that if we've got people joining in the discussion to "fix" social security which gives the impression there's a crisis to fix.

But I wouldn't call Dolstein's post an attempt to attract Republicans. If a couple of adjustments could secure SS for 100 years, he probably thinks that's the logical approach to take. In fact, it is the logical approach to take. Unfortunately, we're not dealing with a logical opposition that wants to secure SS for 100 years and maybe Dolstein doesn't get that. It's a propaganda war and we have to win that before we can get to anything logical.

[ulysses]

16. perhaps.

In general, though, my assumption is that, even if a party centrist is talking about this issue or that, his underlying aim is still to make the party palatable to all five moderate Republicans left in the country.

Maybe I'm just jaded, though. :)

[sandnsea]

17. Jaded,

Perhaps. Some are just aching for reasons to beat on Democrats though, no doubt about that. Not saying you are.

I think people who are discussing solutions right now are misguided about the fight we face. Had a lengthy discussion about that yesterday with a different poster. Finally had to agree to disagree. Appealing to Republicans had nothing to do with it. An honest answer for working people was what that person was after. But I get so frustrated that Democrats can't get on the same page when waging an offense. Then again, maybe the "fix it" people are equally frustrated with those who won't get on their page. I don't know. Makes me understand what it's like to be part of the leadership though. Which group do they listen to?

[MontecitoDem]

12. I doubt it

but if there is one issue, I think it will be the environment. Maybe after another 20 years of fighting each other over the political crumbs from the republicans' table, we'll wise up?

[More Than A Feeling]

14. I think that looking for areas of agreement

rather than creating litmus tests and issues of purity might be helpful. (note: purely my own experience. I am not casting aspersions on anyone here, nor am I implying that what I observed took place here. It did not.)

As far as issues go, I think that as the gay rights movement progresses, as people who are center left or even center realize that signing on to this generation's civil rights movement would be the smart thing to do, that would be a unifying factor

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. As far as I can tell,

the responses of this are split between moderates saying that the necessary step is for the further left of the party to move towards the centre, and liberals saying that the necessary step if for the centrists to move further left.

I think this sums up the problem the left wing in American politics is facing - everyone agrees that unity is a good thing, but no-one is willing to compromise to achieve it.

As far as I can tell, the Republicans avoid this problem by not having a centrist strand. Whether the lesson to be learned from this is that the best tactic is to emulate them, or that now is a perfect time to capture the centre, is a moot point...

[ulysses]

21. yes, well.

I think this sums up the problem the left wing in American politics is facing - everyone agrees that unity is a good thing, but no-one is willing to compromise to achieve it.

From the point of view of this liberal, I think we've compromised quite enough already. What we're talking about is a coalition, and coalitions don't require that one side do all the giving.