Is splinterism a white middle-class luxury?

[LoZoccolo]

[nashville_brook]

1. what exactly is splinterism?

[LoZoccolo]

2. Working in such a way that risks losing power for the Democrats.

An example would be voting for a third party like the Green Party.

[nashville_brook]

3. oh! f*ck that!

i support the Greens with donations and spend plenty of time behind their causes, but when it comes voting -- no vote can be wasted.

we need to understand the political life involves so much more than voting. the Greens have a place, for sure-- but not on the presidential ticket -- at least not until the right wing splits their ticket as well.

[LoZoccolo]

6. Good answer.

I've always said - you want the Democratic Party to support something that's considered fringe now, well, advocate it, build the numbers for support, and they won't be able to ignore it. There are plenty of issues like this.

[John_H]

4. And it's a luxury the folks we're supposed to be fighting for can't afford

The trust those of us who (since we're not cutting Donald Rumsfeld's grass to buy our kids clothes) have the time to fight to do what we can to help them now, not yap yap yap like a bunch of Adjunct Instructors of English at a visiting poet reception.

[DBoon]

5. Is left wing communism an infantile disorder?

Is sectarianism a game played by petite bourgeois elements?

[eg101]

7. Splinterism is our only negotiating tool

if we cannot hold out the idea of not voting for the Dems, then we have no power at all.

[LoZoccolo]

8. See post #3 from a supporter of the Green Party.

I found it very constructive.

[Coastie for Truth]

9. I remember 1968

Too many Progressives sat on their hands --- and we got Tricky Dickie. Same thing with Nader in 2000.

I think Nader had a lot of Texas GOP Money -- and Scaife/Coors Money --- to encourage Progressive Splinterism --- and our splinterism gave us Bush.

[Wind Dancer]

11. Gore won in 2000.

There are some of us that are NOT going to vote or support a candidate simply because they have a "D" next to their name.

Many Dems are not worthy of the party, let's clean house and elect candidates who represent "THE PEOPLE", not the corporations.

[American Tragedy]

12. Seems to me 1968 was a different story.

Look, I admit I wasn't there, but according to what I have read and been told, Hubert Humphrey clung slavishly to Johnson's position, against his own better judgment, out of moral and political cowardice. In doing so, he betrayed young progressive men who saw their friends die for nothing, and who believed that they were likely to be drafted and killed too; as well as the mothers and fathers and relatives of these boys. Nixon at the very least voiced strong criticism and promised to exit Vietnam. Of course it ultimately was to little avail, because Nixon was indeed a liar, but to desperate people it sure as hell sounded better than nothing.

Progressives didn't sit on their hands then. They were fucking betrayed! If Humphrey had come out very strongly against Vietnam, and promised to withdraw immediately, not only would he have renewed their faith in the party, but he would have almost certainly won the election. History might have been very different. My father and many in his generation who were drafted never forgave that, and I suspect that our party has never fully recovered from it.

That having been said, I don't agree with splintering under most circumstances. If we can't find a way to stick together in the big battles, we will all lose. However, as voting constituents have a right to demand that our representatives fight for us, especially when it is the righteous and politically expedient thing to do.

[Coastie for Truth]

26. I was there

I WAS THERE!

I was threatened with an Article 88, 133, 134 Court Martial

"Article 88 - Uniform Code of Military Justice

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

Article 133 - Uniform Code of Military Justice

CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN
Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Article 134. - Uniform Code of Military Justice

GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court. "

for violation of the Hatch Act (Title 5, United States Code, Sections 7321 etc.):

"Section 7324. Political activities on duty; prohibition

(a) An employee may not engage in political activity--
(1) while the employee is on duty;"

For working in the Humphrey Campaign during my own "off duty" "liberty" time. My Nixonian Commanding Officer said that I am on duty 24 by 7 (in a freakin' engineering office in Washington?).

I put my butt on the line for Humphry -- and against Nixon and Wallace! I was a "young Progressive" -- in a time of "Punitive Transfers" to Viet Nam. I had three friends who were transferred to Viet Nam for "punitive" reasons. I was threatened with "punitive transfers" at least twice.

Nixon was a liar ----we all knew that.

Humphry came out against the war -- just too late to please the purists.

BTW - Nixon played the "Race Card" - remember 1968 was the year of urban riots -- and Humphry was very, very strong on Civil Rights and 1968 marked the beginning of "busing to achieve racial integration" and "quotas" (which hurt the Dems in even the most liberal and progressive white constituencies).

I WAS THERE!

[IndyPriest]

10. I used to think it was until I read up on the Civil RIghts

movement -- which really was a collection of splintered movements, which sometimes could hardly speak to each other. Inherent tendencies within progressive politics are an optimism about the expression of dissent (and so a lower evaluation of movement and message discipline) and an optimism about enemies (they're probably not as bad as they appear to be). Both allow, even encourage, splintering because both tendencies are slow to pick up on clear and present dangers. Neo-Con politics is all about the presentation of clear and present dangers (to the point of being certifiably paranoid, imho.) But its "strength" is that it can organize tightly, and doesn't tolerate a lot of wasted energy in splintering. Progressive politics of every color is going to have to come to terms with its inherent tendencies or it will never win an argument again, let alone an election.

[American Tragedy]

13. You're right. I believe our side really is inherently fractious.

I have experienced this personally. At an anti-war protest a while back, members of ANSWER started waving red banners and diluted their message with numerous vocal advocates of obscure radical causes.

I took a couple organizers aside and tried to explain to them that they alienate the overwhelming majority of people when they try to associate the peace movement inextricably with other ideas with which many of us are very uncomfortable. In fact, they undermine all of us, by allowing the media to reduce the entire peace movement to a few pissed off anarchists and communists.

Hell, they even alienated me; how must they come across to the 95%+ of the population that is less liberal than I am?

They can advocate these causes with their other endorsers, but why address them here, when the goal should be to reach out to the mainstream? I wasn't there to free Mumia, overthrow global capitalism, abolish private property, or anything else. I was there to protest the fucking war. That's it.

They responded by saying that how could someone be against the war, yet not pursue these objectives? With that, I left. They totally missed the point.

[Radical Activist]

14. You left

So weren't you the one being fractious and splintering? I heard views I didn't agree with at protests, but it didn't bother me. I'm not sure being so worried about what the mainstream will think is an issue worth splintering over. Perhaps speaking to the mainstream isn't the only or even most important purpose for a protest.

[American Tragedy]

17. Yes, I was. The entire left is fractious.

So, what is the purpose of a protest?

[Radical Activist]

18. I think there are many

Of course one is media coverage, but the media rarely reports protests in a positive light. Another is to bring out views that rarely get discussed or considered in the mainstream press which stifles many ideas. Having good speakers that inspire movement activists and encourage people to think about new ideas is important.
Another is to bring progressives and others together. Protests can bring a great sense of community, togetherness and a feeling of combined strength that can buoy a movement in a way that is difficult to duplicate. Especially in areas where the majority are of the opposing viewpoint.

You didn't go to a protest in Knoxville TN did you? That's where I helped organize a few against the war.

[RafterMan]

23. But isn't the purpose of an anti-war protest

stopping the war? When people try to piggyback other issues on to that platform, it seems they're just blunting their own sword by narrowing the pool of people who wish to participate.

That's great if your goal is to separate the wicked from the just, not so great if you're trying to stop a war.

[jfs1000]

16. exactly

Exactly. I talked to people who voted for Bush despite the fact they don't agree with anything he says. They just can't bring themselvs to align politically with vegans and peace activists. I think it is a shame the peace movement has been hijackd by radicals. I don't even support that movement now.

[Radical Activist]

19. hijacked by radicals?

Who was running the peace movement before the radicals? Anyone who actively advocates peace during wartime is usually automatically deemed a radical. I haven't noticed many moderates and play it safe types jumping out of their seats to organize protests or other activities for peace.

[ulysses]

22. right.

You won't notice it, either.

[deutsey]

28. Depends on whether you're

with People's Front of Judea or the Judean People's Front or the Judean Popular People's Front.

PS: This is in response to the original post. Sorry.

[LittleClarkie]

15. Should some people be allowed to play with the poll button

When just asking the question would have sufficed?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[Mr.Green93]

20. white middle-class luxury

is the root cause of a lot of problems.

[ulysses]

21. no. the DLC is. n/t

[MadHound]

24. No, splinterism is actually a valid, useful political tool

After all, if it wasn't for the Socialist threatening FDR from the left during his first re-election bid, we wouldn't have two of the Democratic signature programs that we have today, Social Security and unemployment insurance. Sometimes it take a good kick from the outside, in the form of a third party threat, to move the party back to where it needs to go.

[TalkingDog]

25. Hahahaha! I thought it said Spinsterism.....

I thought...WTF?

Dyslexia.

[Walt Starr]

27. How can you splinter something that does not exist

The more I watch the Republicrats, the more I see what Nader was saying.