How best to combat dangerous right wing policies?

[jpgray]

Ernst Thalmann chose the first option, choosing to battle the Social Democrats instead of the Nazis, despite having far more in common with the former. He believed (in accordance with Comintern at the time) that the real danger was "social fascism," not fascism itself. Fascism he saw as ridiculous on its face, and once in power he believed the public would throw it out on their own. Social Democrats he saw as a force that put up a too-weak resistance to some of the worst aspects of fascism while throwing in a few meager bits of socialism to appease the masses. He thought the Social Democrats were the greater threat because this tactic made the horrible fascist-type policies more palatable, and thus stymied significant public revolt. I'm sure his slogan "After the Nazis, Our Turn" must have rang pretty hollow after he died in Buchenwald.

Sheehan and Nader remind me of Thalmann. Many of their ideas are admirable--their purity and honesty especially are sorely missed in our average politicians. But their strategic thinking leaves a lot to be desired in my view. I understand many think our batch of Democrats are essentially timid, weak Republicans. Fine. I choose not to attack and replace a timid, weak Republican over attacking and replacing a horrid, asshole, warmongering, rights-stealing Republican. Kill the -source- of the evil policies and those too weak to oppose them won't have the option to collaborate.

[Vincardog]

1. ...

[jpgray]

2. How?

[Vincardog]

8. ...

[jpgray]

10. Or responding to them?

[depakid]

3. Your analogy also rings hollow

Considering that the so called "centrists" in both actions and words enable and support the very policies that have brought a form of fascism to this country.

Yep- the so called "new Democrats" -in actual fact, are in many if not most ways little more than timid Republicans.

The results will be the same- though they may take a bit longer to get there.

[jpgray]

4. You'd replace a timid, reluctant Republican instead of a Santorum?

Do you hear yourself?

[depakid]

13. I wouldn't run one in the first place- but actually, long term yes

Rather than go on a slow, inexorable slide to the same policies- and the same result (which at this point looks to be economic collapse and a country of men, not laws) it would have been far better to have had a principled resistence.

Instead, we got repeated sell outs- and some of them, like the Telecommunications bill- were so self defeating as to have virtually assured that the traditional Democratic values would become irrelevant- indeed, that the party itself would become irrelevant (which it was- and to some extent still is) for the past 15 years or so.

[jpgray]

14. Why not attack those who -initiate- the harmful policies?

Those who collaborate aren't as dangerous, simply because they would never initiate such policies themselves. Is it just because the collaborators seem more likely to be harmed by progressive voters running away, whereas the right wingers don't need progressive voters at all?

[depakid]

16. Last I saw, Democrats were responsible for initiating a lot of those policies

Including de-regulation of the financial/insurance industry, energy, and SEC oversight- just to name a few of many.

With friends like those, who needs enemies.

[jpgray]

18. On the balance, whose initiated policies have been more devastating--Democrats' or Republicans'?

As bad as some Dem-initiated legislation is, I doubt you can compare it to the crushing imperialism or rights-stealing bigotry of the Republicans. Without someone initiating those policies there can be no collaboration.

[depakid]

30. The difference is slow and inexorble vs fast and more shocking

My point is that the decline will continue unless and until we have representatives and candidates who STOP enabling, legitimizing and voting for corrupt and irrational far right policies.

The "leadership" over the past 15 years has basically shown their fealty to those policies and the underlying principles- which have devastating effects on ordinary Americans, many of whom see little difference between the parties- and rightly so, because in many ways that effect their lives, the outcomes have been the same.

Now, if the party was able to draw a bright line- a contrast between the far right Republicans on the one hand- those who drive off their jobs and wages- with a party who sides with them on say, consumer laws, then they'd have something to vote FOR.

As it is, many of us with good conscience cannot say vote FOR the Democrats, because they stand with us.

All we can say is that "Republicans are worse."

That, unfortunately, hasn't proven a very compelling reason to get people- particuarly independent minded folks out to the polls.

[jpgray]

33. Would more right wingers being elected as a result of this purge be fine with you ?

[bryant69]

9. Well let's be sure what we are taling about

Lieberman is definitely a new democrat; but is Pelosi? Edwards? Obama? Reid?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[jpgray]

37. If you get big picture enough, they're all the same

Of course, if you get big picture enough, we should all starve ourselves to death.

[yella_dawg]

5. Other

Torches and pitchforks.


If it isn't already too late for more subtle measures, it will be by the time one could organize and effect such lesser strategies.

[jpgray]

6. Ok. Are you going to do this today or tomorrow?

Post pictures.

[BlooInBloo]

7. Long-term, there's no way, except a more intelligent, caring electorate.

[jpgray]

11. That could be. But which method is better or worse? Or is it just a matter of delaying?

[BlooInBloo]

17. By my lights, they're both primarily variations on ignoring the true problem: the electorate.

[jpgray]

19. And how to fix the electorate without any use of the political system?

[BlooInBloo]

23. I never suggested anything like "without any political system"....

... The question is what is being *aimed at*. It's perfectly possible to leverage the various mechanisms of government to further to goal of improving a bad electorate. Alternatively, it is possible to leverage those mechanisms to merely achieve something with the *symptoms* of a bad electorate, viz. the elected politicians. Your set of choices appears to be of the latter variety. I advocate the former.

[jpgray]

24. Ok. How? The composition of our legislative bodies doesn't matter in this scenario?

[Magrittes Pipe]

12. There's a lot of gross ignorance here.

The Democrats in Congress are not complicit in sending millions to the gas chambers at Auschwitz; so to compare them with Vichy France is at best disingenuous, and at worst completely fucking disgraceful and a dishonor to the millions in the camps, in Eastern Europe, in France, in Scandinavia and the Low Countries, in London, and on the battlefield who died at the hands of the Nazis.

Any such comparison is sickening.

[Vincardog]

20. They are complicit in sending hundreds of Thousands of Iraqi civilians

to the next life. What is sickening is what they are allowing to happen in our name and to our government.

[jpgray]

22. How are the people who fail to stop this evil worse than those who purposefully -caused- it?

How does that make any sense at all? For example: voting for the IWR bill was fucking stupid and deplorable, but pushing relentlessly for and then starting the war is worse, by many orders of magnitude.

[Vincardog]

27. I never said it was worse. Why are you picking up that straw man?

You started this by asking "best to combat dangerous right wing policies", and you use the discussion to slide in your defense of "Centrist" enablers.

couldn't you get enough hits by just stating you original opinion?

[jpgray]

28. Then would you agree that the worst elements are by definition more deserving of attack/removal?

[Vincardog]

29. When ever possible. The best elements have to be promoted and replace the bad ones.

[jpgray]

35. Do you support a purity purge of the Dem party? Even if Republicans regain majority as a result?

[Vincardog]

36. False choice no comment

[jpgray]

38. A likely consequence is unanswerable? Okay. Next question: which reps deserve to be purged?

How will you decide the criteria of the purge? How will you organize the candidates and the infrastructure in red states where Bush rules and folks like Gore lost? How will you guarantee attacking the moderate Dems who barely won in conservative areas won't result in troglodyte Republican victory, allowing for more bad policies only with zero investigation or oversight as opposed to less than you'd like?

[Magrittes Pipe]

31. Okay, so get rid of them.

Push everyone even remotely in the middle-of-the-road out of the party.

If I got to get rid of every Democrat to the right of me, the Republicans would have a 90% to 10% supermajority forever. I'm far too responsible to screw my country and my world in the interests of ideological purity.

If you want to cut off your own nose, fine, but I'll have no part of it.

[ClassWarfare2008]

15. There will always be right wingers and a right wing party.

But there's no reason why we should have to tolerate right wingers in OUR party.

[jpgray]

21. So tolerance for war-starting rightwingers, and intolerance for the timid collaborating ones

Again, do you folks hear yourselves?

[ClassWarfare2008]

25. No, I don't tolerate ANY of them.

It's just that I don't expect the Repukes to change. If they DO change, great. I'd love to see it. But that's on the "good" Republicans to change that, if indeed there are any such thing anymore.

My responsibility is to chase the goddamned treasonous corporatists and AIPAC whores out of MY party.

[jpgray]

26. But attacking the collaborators who share some of your views strengthens those who share none

Don't you see that? You can't feasibly replace every Democrat who doesn't meet your expectations--some of them are in extremely conservative districts/states that won't support your type of candidate. Net result: we lose our majority and any chance for investigation, along with impeachment, and hand the most dangerous policymakers, Republicans, a 65%+ supermajority.

[ClassWarfare2008]

32. There is a difference between being a "conservative" Democrat

and being a corporatist or an AIPAC sellout. I can understand why a Democrat in a red state wouldn't vote to legalize gay marriage, for example, though I don't agree with them, and might personally consider them cowards. But there is NO excuse to vote for a war for profit, or for an agenda driven by a foreign entity. The people in the red states don't support that bullshit anymore than I do.

[jpgray]

34. So the same states that chose Bush over Gore or Kerry will elect your purity candidates?

How many of each party's red state Senators would you say are a-OK by your standards?

[jpgray]

39. I wish I had named this something more exciting. I want more DUers' views on this.