Elections: Pragmatic or Idealistic

[iamjoy]

I've really been thinking about this a lot lately, as far as what type of candidates we Democrats want. Do we want some one who tries to play to the middle (Moderate) or an unabashed Liberal?

I have heard the argument that many moderates are DINOs and just as (or almost as bad as) the Republicans. Really? Can you imagine if any of the Democratic candidates from 2004 had been President that (s)he would have tried to put some one like Alito on the SCOTUS? Can you imagine any of them playing guitar or eating cake while New Orleans was dying? If we are being pragmatic, we will recognize that we must keep the big picture in mind, and that means compromising on some issues.

If we are idealistic, we will claim that Democrats are not losing because they are too liberal for America, but because they fail to articulate any sort of vision or principles. Compromising and moving to the middle is a recipie for failure because it seems fake or weak. Anyway, how many principles must we sacrifice? At what point have we given up so much that we have lost our identity (have we already)?

Is there another way or something I am missing? What do you think the Democratic party needs to be to win, Pragmatic/Moderate or Idealistic/Bold

[Vincardog]

1. Chasing the middle does no good especially if you fail to stand for the

ideals the left was founded on. Chasing the center has not worked for the last 12 years. It is time to stand on principals and damn the experts.
When was the last time you heard a candidate say:
"I am for Universal Health care"
"I am for a Quality Free Public Education for every American Citizen"
"I am for Full Employment at a living wage"
"We have to respect the environment, where else are we going to live"
"Equal rights are for EVERYONE"
?

[iamjoy]

7. Dennis Kucinich

Didn't he say a lot of that?

And he didn't win.

[Vincardog]

8. Do you believe aWoL "WON"?

[stray cat]

10. No, but the point of the poster is that Kucinich didn't do so well

[Vincardog]

13. So you advocate chasing the mythical middle and forsaking Liberal Values?

That is the recipe for disaster the DLC has been preaching for the last 12 years. I say stand for something or fall for anything

[OKNancy]

2. How about a dynamic moderate

or a pragmatic liberal? Who knows what the next two years will bring? I just don't think we can pigeon-hole a candidate. Whomever we nominate, we have to be smart and also pick someone who can win.
Also, who DU wants may not match who the large voting public wants.

( How is that for a wishy-washy post? :-) )

[stray cat]

3. Frankly I think we can do both

We need to articulate a clear vision. However, the vision needs to have a basis in practical reality. True leaders are both visionary, and clear headed realists who don't sugar coat difficulties. They also must be capable, clear communicators who can communicate their vision and the difficulties we face. Its not either or but both and I don't think that requires a wishwashy stance.

[Zynx]

4. People are really looking for competence right now.

I don't think Americans are looking for a big ideological fight. I don't sense any longing for something like that.

[Ready4Change]

5. Caveat: I'm a Repub expatriot here on DU.

I no longer view the GOP as supporting what I feel are Republican values, and find sentiments here on DU much closer to my own than anything currently in the GOP. I say this so you'll know where I'm coming from.

I think there is a vaste area of un-represented people in the center. One of Clintons successes was in attracting those people, and I think that's a very powerful strategy. It's obvious there are 30% on the right who will vote Republican no matter what, just as there are 30% on the left who will vote Dem no matter what. Gains are to be made in the middle.

IMO, Republicans of the last decade have made gains in the middle through what could easily be viewed as evil means. Fear, appeals to ignorance and hatred, and fast footed lies. And it's worked, in the same way that beating a dog works. And frankly, it takes a coordinated effort of the sort to which Dems aren't well suited.

If the Republicans rule the middle with the stick, then Dems can rule with the carrot. In the Dems case, the carrot is honesty, appeals to intelligence, and hope. Again, look at Clinton. He provided hope which drove up consumer confidence. He surrounded himself with one of the most intelligent cabinets in history, and reversed the doldrums of the previous 2 decades in a single term. And in the end, it was an act of dishonesty which was his undoing. (By finally giving the witch-hunters something to grab hold of.)

But his success speaks of the power of appealing to the middle. The middle is hungry for representation. It is tired of extremists. If the left doesn't even TRY to attract them, Republican lies will continue to draw them in.

Just my .02

[wyldwolf]

9. VERY well put, but it will fall on deaf ears here

Some on DU think there is a hidden "left" majority who will magically appear in some election some day soon and that they don't need moderates and independents.

[stray cat]

11. The middle wants competence and solid leadership

that gets something done that actually helps Americans. I think they want honest straight talk that is visionary but very practical.

[Crunchy Frog]

6. I think you're setting up a false dichotomy

and I reject your premises. All that the word "pragmatic" means is being in favor of what works, or what is most effective in achieving your goal.

If you happen to believe, as I do, that the Democrats lose because they are percieved as weak, and that the way to deal with the problem is to have Democrats with a strong identity who stand up for their principles, than that is your pragmatic view.

If you believe that moving to the "middle" (really the right, since the Repubs keep pushing it in that direction) and that articulating strong principles is a recipe for failure, than that is your pragmatic view.

In other words, both positions are equally pragmatic, they just stem from differing opinions on what is likely to be effective in winning elections.

The idealistic view would be to not care about winning, but only that the candidate fit with your preferred ideology, or have other characteristics that you care about. If you want Hillary because you think she'll win, then you support her for pragmatic reasons. If you want her because you want the nominee to be female, and you place that ahead of a desire to win, then you support her for idealistic reasons.

[Armstead]

12. That's a phony choice -- Pragmatic AND Idealistic can win

IMO a bigger cause of political problems than right-wing nuts is voter apathy caused by Democratic listlessnes and "pragmatism."

People WANT idealism. People want a society that cares about them, instead of a "winner take all" jungle.

One reason there is all this talk of religious revival and "values" is because under conservatism our nation has become totally corrupt and amoral, to the point where more and more people are suffering everyday. Corporate ruthlessness, lack of public accountability nd all the rest are nailing the middle and lower classes to the wall.

Obviously idealism has limits. But things have gottenm so f'd up that there is a long way to go to reach that point. Democrats SHOULD become the Party of Ideals, because that would also make them a winning alternative to the GOP.