3rd parties, two choices.

[skids]

Was there a news article I missed, or is there just a spontaneous "bash on Greens/Nader/whatever" movement born from a random DU gestalt?

Anyway, I think something bears saying. For the stridently Dem, when it comes to dealing with 3rd parties you basically have two choices:

1) You can denegrate them with a broad brush the way Republicans denegrate Democrats, and alienate any reasonable members for the sake of telling the yahoos in that party to screw off, to the point where the bridge for cooperative action has been burned to a crisp.

or

2) You can just stick up for being a Democrat when the yahoos in that thrid party themselves go on a rant. Since you aren't the agressor, that won't piss of any reasonable members that party may have. If they are so aligned, they may even help out when Dems need something done but don't want the PR of doing it, like we saw with, for example, court challenges to 2004 elections.

(The yahoos are lost causes anyway.)

So what's it going to be? Take out your frustrations on the playground weakling like a wannabe bully, or stand by your principles?

Just sayin.

[Dogmudgeon]

1. The bashing imperative

A lot of it was born from a small number of Greens/Naderites/whatever who developed towering moral rage in the 2000 election, and then had to justify it after they realize they had been Played, Used, and "Pwned".

I had a close friend who fit this description; we shared a house, and he was officially my landlord. He made my every waking moment an ordeal, with me not knowing whether and when he would lecture, harangue, or ridicule me. His "trump card" was to strut his Conscience and Principles as his bona fides like a Fundy strutting God and the Bible -- as if I myself were lacking in Conscience and Principles. (Well, obviously, I was, since I didn't hate Clinton, who had personally murdered 500 million nuns and orphans, or whatever version of the story Alexander Cockburn was promoting in late 2000.)

The difference in our opinion? Very small. (I was not inculpable by any means, but my own part in the folie-a-deux wasn't political.) He aspired to the Counterpunch crowd, and developed a trendy hatred (yes, hatred) of Gore and Clinton -- he referred to Clinton as "the Murderer". I read Counterpunch, but didn't have much desire to wear cynicism as a fashion accessory. And I had very little respect for socially aggerssive, competitive Leftiness. The people who made that their preferred social strategy formed a protective little Prateorian Guard around Abbie Hoffman, then let him dangle when he developed the depression which eventually drove him to suicide.

I have little desire to personally "bash" individuals, but I still think the attitude is even less helpful than the high-powered drive to compromise which still affects many Democrats. Too many people in political activism are there strictly for socialization, as a form of therapy, or to "get laid". Such psycho-logic may have helped the Republicans hold on to power over the past 6 years, but the long-term effect will be the ruin of their own party. We on the left -- Democratic, Green, or what have you -- had better learn from those mistakes, or our own tenure will be brief and bloody.

And that friend of mine? We've had very little contact in the past five years. It's a shame. It's tough for me to just pick up the phone to say hello, and obviously it's as tough for him to do the same. Overall, it was a small problem that came from a small difference in politics at a time when we each were not successful in the "Pursuit of Happiness". So, it is especially important to remember at times like these to recalibrate perspective when dealing with annoying or stupid behavior -- someone else's or one's own.

--p!

[skids]

2. I meant, why now?

Why the sudden rash of posts?

[MadHound]

4. The Democratic party hemorraged a significant amount of voters

When they failed to filibuster Alito. A lot of people simply got tired of the ongoing lack of spine within the Democratic party, and publicly stated that they were going elsewhere, notably the Greens.

This brought out the Nader haters and what have you. Rather ironic, for rather than doing something constructive and concrete to lure these voters back, all they do is bash, bash, bash, thus driving these voters even further away. If they would instead work on taking some of the Green planks and making them their own, they would probably lure these voters back out of sheer self interest if nothing else. But instead they belittle and berate another party, while completely ignoring the fatal flaws in their own.

[EFerrari]

7. Ah -- that is what happened. The Alito disappointment.

I'm still not over that one.

As a Green, it's funny because, I really was thinking about checking out. Not over Alito but over the Cindy bashing.

We sure do get worked up, don't we.

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. The thing is a lot of people assume Greens are former Dems but

my dad and I were never Dems first. If I had my way I would be a Green/Socialist/Dem. I know Greens allow for dual party membership, but I am not sure about three parties. :)

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Just a guess ...

A large number of people last week swore that they would leave the party or destroy the political careers of those Democrats who voted "for" Alito (by voting for cloture and blocking the filibuster). Since a lot of it was the same rhetoric adapted to the most recent situation, perhaps this is a time-delayed response to it.

Of course, it makes no sense in a political planning context, but a lot of what happens on DU isn't The Voice Of The People, but the echo chamber of various tribes of political wonks. Ideally DU (and similar on-line groups) works to allow coordination of effort, pre-activism discussion, and socialization. Bashing comes along with the territory.

--p!

[EFerrari]

3. There is actually a third choice, lol.

And that is finding points of agreement to move forward common goals.

Or, is that too radical? :)

[LWolf]

5. That's just what I was thinking.

Which goals are paramount? The goals of advancing issues, or the goals of advancing party?

[EFerrari]

6. I think many here at DU would say the latter.

And in a way, I envy their pragmatism and their enthusiasm. :)

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. As far as I am concerned election reform is the ONLY issue in that

as long as we have a rigged system where the corporations and rich elite are the ones put into office, we have zero hope for getting healthy policies put into place. So if we fix the election system and can elect people who are concerned with issues other than accruing wealth and power, we have a shot at cleaning up a lot of our problems.

So, we need to repair the election system from the bottom up. Fix our towns, counties, and states. Eventually those changes will trickle up and we will send better people to the Hill. It's not a quick fix by any means but for now it seems to be our only option of overhauling the system.

More about election reform: http://www.hostdiva.com/liberalchristians/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=116&Itemid=29

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. That's exactly why I ended up coming to DU. Time to build some coalitions

[EFerrari]

10. Exactly.

:toast:

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. How about toasting with mugs of coffee? A bit early for beer *g*

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. The "not as bad party" is no longer good enough..

I've been a Democrat since 1965. I usually held my nose and voted for the lesser of two evils in fear of being stuck with a Republican. The exceptions were 1968 when I voted against the war in Vietnam and sat on my hands in '94 because our rep had sold her soul to the NRA (she lost).

Since '92 the Dems have drifted inexorably to the right in a vain pursuit of the "middle" (aka - Republicans). The "leadership" has given up holding the left, counting on them to surrender to the "not as bad" argument.

I hear many arguments that we progressives must stick with, and support, the party and "change it from the inside". An argument that I find facile.

As long as the Democratic politicians can count on our votes, they will (wisely, from their perspective) go after the votes they can't count on. The votes that normally go to the Republicans. Thus we get "liberal" politicians moving to the right to "capture the middle, the red states, the moderates". The result is that we now have a party that has "compromised" itself into a pale imitation of the Republicans.

The solution? Vote issues. Not party or politicians. I don't expect "purity". I can overlook, with a sigh, such antics as voting to name a bridge after Reagan, or getting something out of a compromise over funding for education.
But, there are issues and there are issues. War. Choice. The corruption of money in politics. The environment. Civil rights and civil liberties.

Political parties and politicians are only vehicles to move toward goals. It's the goals that are important. Not the vehicle.

I have no qualms about voting Green or not voting for Democrats who "compromise" on important issues.

[iamthebandfanman]

15. in my opinion

WHEN, and i do say when, the democrats take back the houses and the whitehouse i think you will see a large 3rd party movement arise.
hopefully this will create a new party from both the democrats and the republicans.