On Ideology and the House

[mr715]

Progressivepunch has

Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emmanuel as more liberal than Kucinich. Can someone please tell me the REAL reason people keep promoting Kucinich as a true liberal while the House leadership are DINOs?




M

[Greeby]

1. Hmm, lets see

Opposing this war by all means available, including marshalling support for his own legislation to end it.

Lobbying for a Department of Peace and for a Peace Tax Fund as a legal alternative to war tax evasion.

Voting against these half-trillion giveaways to the Military Industrial Complex every year. And proposing a 15% cut in military spending (doesn't sound like much, but he doesn't want his head blown off)

I could go on and on, but check out his vast issues section: http://www.kucinich.us/issues/

[mr715]

2. I mean...

does this boil down to war = republican?

I've been over the whole department of peace deal and I just find it totally ridiculous. We have one already - its called the Dept of State.

[LWolf]

3. My 2 cents:

Kucinich legitimately has no strings attached; he works for people, not corporations, and he is one of the working class he represents. In other words, he is an authentic, legitimate representative of the people the U.S. government is supposed to serve. He is about much more than the Department of Peace. One thing that you will find, if you are paying attention, is that he walks his talk, whether it is politically expedient or not. Refreshing, and something I don't get from Pelosi.

Some of the big issues I appreciate his position and efforts on include:

Universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care

Oppostition to NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO

campaign/election reform, including acting on electronic voting fraud issues in the '04 primary

Support for alternative, sustainable energy sources and uses

And, yes, the Department of Peace, which has a long history of discussion in the U.S., beginning in the 1700s. It's an evolved, higher-level consciousness that recognizes that what we "feed" with our focus, our words, our energy, and our resources, is what thrives. Valuing peace, and diplomacy, at least equally with war and aggression would be a big step towards a nation where peace and diplomacy thrives. The Department of Peace is a vehicle to achieve that. I don't find that "ridiculous" at all. What have you "been over?" Have you read through the website?

http://www.thepeacealliance.org/content/view/56/123/

Particularly, this piece under "FAQ?"

<snip>

Q: Does a Department of Peace duplicate the Department of State?

A: No.

First, the Department of State handles only international matters, while the Department of Peace will operate both domestically and abroad. Second, the State Department deals exclusively with other "States," i.e. recognized governmental entities. While such an approach was adequate throughout most of the post WWII era, there is obviously now a greater need to deal creatively, if not diplomatically, with non-state agents. The Department of State plays an important and pivotal role in American diplomacy, and nothing in this legislation would change that. The Dept. of Peace, however, will augment the efforts of the Department of State, as well as the Department of Defense. Its work will go beyond “intelligence-gathering,” to a pro-active search for non-violent solutions.

We should be as sophisticated in the ways we wage peace as we are in the ways we wage war. Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, speaking of his leadership during the Viet Nam War, said, “We knew nothing about Vietnamese religion, psychology or culture – and we had no one to tell us.” With a Department of Peace, that would never be the case. This department would be actively involved in studying the most human aspects of conflict, and applying ways to resolve them peacefully.

Have you looked at the 75 co-sponsors in the house, and the 2 cosponsors from the senate?

At the groups that have endorsed this legislation?

The state Democratic Party sections that have endorsed it?

It is not just the DOP that rallies progressive and/or liberals around DK, but the DOP is certainly a positive factor.

I don't know if War=Republican, but for me, War = the worst, not the best, that this nation is capable of. War symbolizes greed, arrogance, and the underlying weakness of the bully. I'm pleased to stand with those that recognize it as such, and don't pander to fear and greed.

[mr715]

4. Hmm

I have trouble believing that war is intrinsically the worst option.

In WW2, war was right. And it was handled right. Because the route of no war was unacceptable.

Peace is fine and dandy, but its a "feel good" word and not rational. A department of peace is like a department of happiness. Its a feeling, not a thing. And not necessarily something that should be worked for.

The Department of State is, originally, the office of the government. The role of the chief of staff was originally subsumed under state offices. Now, the State Dept handles diplomacy and crap, BUT it can just as easily handle intranational issues.

A department of peace is not something that government should have.

[LWolf]

5. That's some pretty good propaganda,

but it really doesn't hold water.

A societal norm that non-violent solutions are better than violent reactions is not a "feel good" response. It's a simple truth that all the propaganda in the world won't overcome. Resources in the form of life, money, and the environment are preserved through non-violent solutions.

I don't think war is ever "right." I do think that self-defense is a legitimate use of armed forces. I don't really think of self-defense as "war," though. Self-defense is countering an attack, not going on the offensive. Offense, by its very nature, is offensive.

I also don't think the attack on pearl harbor legitimizes unleashing atomic weapons on Hiroshima, or on the playing field of the world. You could say that fascism, Hitler and the Nazis, and pearl harbor were the logical consequences of a diplomatic failure; exactly what the department of peace is designed to avoid.

I think it's interesting that you couch your remarks about Dennis Kucinich in terms of the DOP, rather than his whole record. It looks, to me, like you are looking for a DLC/Orwellian spin for "liberal democrat." Like you think the DLC could possibly claim progressive ground somewhere. I don't think your remarks are really concerned with DK or the DOP. I think they are testing out "talking points" for the DLC to hold onto some progressive votes. Just my take.

We obviously disagree on the DOP; that's fine with me. We may also disagree on what constitutes a "liberal" democrat; that's your prerogative, of course. I suggest that trying to "re-frame" the conversation about liberal/progressive democrats may result in actual losses to the Democratic Party, when true progressives, rather than the newly renamed moderates, continue to drop their support of the party as a whole.

Currently, more than half of the progressives I worked with in '04 have stated to me that they will no longer support the Democratic Party. Others, like myself, are disgruntled and disillusioned, but are still here. I'm watching curiously to see how far the Party is willing to go to distance itself from the left, and whether that plays out well in the long run.