DUers at times remind me of the guy who takes shit from the boss all day, but only yells at his wife

[jpgray]

It doesn't matter that the one really doing the damage isn't the chief recipient of the vitriol, because the one he yells at actually has at least some respect for him, is obliged to listen, and thus gives him a sense of having the control he wants. Because he has not an iota of that respect from the boss, and since the boss doesn't feel any particular need for rapport and approval, rage directed at the boss will have zero emotional impact. It wouldn't hurt the boss, while there's a good chance it will hurt the wife.

Now it's perfectly correct to say "that analogy is fucking ridiculous on a lot of levels. The pleasing similarities, if they even exist, don't outweigh the vast differences between the two situations." That's absolutely right. But let me try to pin down for you why I am looking at those similarities.

The Democrats have the most common ground with us, and they have the most ability to turn our views into policy. We get angrier at them for a partial, cowardly retreat from our values than we do with the Republicans for their total unity in the active plotting and enactment of the -destruction- of our values. Why is that? We're pissed off. We want to yell at someone. We want to make our hurt and our pain and our impatience felt. We don't feel that the Republicans will respond at all, so we direct all that outrage at someone who -will- care. But are we directing it at the right place?

Is it fair to curse and rail against the Democrats in general when on -every fucking issue- DU cares about there are great Democrats speaking out and standing up for us? How is the party which holds total contempt for us and attacks all our beliefs in a united fashion mostly ignored, while the party which contains a minority of enablers and a minority of great people routinely shat on? Why shit on the whole party when it contains Dennis Kucinich? Al Gore? Russ Feingold? At least attack those Democrats that -do- enable and run away from crucial issues rather than broad-brush smear the entire party.

Yeah, they're not supportive enough. Yeah, they are weak in their fight for our values, and give in too much to the Republicans. All true. But not all of them do that, and the lousy ones still empower the good ones. Conyers and Waxman and Leahy have all done great things in this Congress. Without the lousy Democrats a lot of it wouldn't be possible. Electing a squeamish, enabling Democrat to replace a Republican is an ugly compromise, but it empowers the best Democrats. That squeamish, enabling Democrat will make the wrong difference too often in a Congress wherein we have a weak majority, but how is that grounds for attacking the entire party? When the alternative for an enabling Democrat is in almost all cases a far more horrible Republican, insisting on near-absolute purity for all party members is not an option. Trying and pushing for it in all circumstances is great, but insisting on it puts Democrats in the crosshairs instead of the people actively causing the damage.

Case in point, the Cornyn amendment. Anybody think a Democrat would have proposed that amendment? I thought not.

When the alternative to weak, skittish Democrats in office is more Republicans in office, I say target the war-mongering fascists first, -then- take on the war-enabling "social fascists." One as a unity initiates the most egregious offenses against our values, the other only -in part- enables and retreats from the offenses. It's not a situation where you can say one side is good and one side is bad. But you -can- say one side is significantly better than the other. And when the only alternative is that other, time to make the best of an all around shitty situation.

DISCLAIMER: Before you assume I want to quash criticism of Democrats and think they do no wrong, let me say that if you're a progressive, this Congress's record sucks. It's fucking offensive. I'd never defend it record to anyone, -unless- that person is threatening to abandon the Democrats altogether, as some on DU are. Hence this self-hating, silly post.

[redqueen]

1. *sigh*

*sigh*

[saracat]

2. Great post.I agree with most of it! Thank you for posting!

[Mythsaje]

3. I gotcha...

And as far as that goes, I agree with you. I want to see the party reformed, I don't want to abandon it. I think yelling at them for pissing all over us and telling us it's raining is something we HAVE to do to get through to them. This criticism is vital. Right after the election, I wrote a piece that warned them we'd be looking over their shoulders. Since I've seen a couple of my expressions and memes make their way into more public discourse, I have to think it's possible that they were aware of the warning.

[jpgray]

5. Any and all criticism up to abandoning the party altogether I have no problem with

If we had an IRV system, I wouldn't even have a problem with that.

[Mythsaje]

8. Oh, absolutely...

I'm never advocating THAT step, pretty much because the way things are now it's just feeding the monster to abandon our only hope for pushing back at the GOP. It's an often forlorn hope, but it's a hope nonetheless.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Back to the "lesser of two evils" strategy?

No thanks.

[jpgray]

7. I -am- making a busybody fool of myself with this thread, but I have a reason

The Republican party needs a lasting, total defeat. I'll support any and all criticism of Democrats up to the point of not voting or voting (in a close race) for a third party that has no chance to win. The reason? The GOP needs to be totally and completely beaten. In several elections, by as great a margin as possible. To help argue for that, debasing myself on a political message board and being a lecturing asshole seems worthwhile.

[Mythsaje]

10. There are probably few posters more angry than I am about all this right now...

But I'm in complete accord with you on this. Our plan of attack has to be to go after them WITHIN the party. Going outside the party is not going to help us. In fact, it'll harm us.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

6. I think that is a pretty damn good analogy.

:hide:

[L. Coyote]

9. Good analysis, except they are bitching at the whole harem, not just one wife.

It is the broad brush approach that goes over the wall of reason.
There is no "the Dems" when it comes to votes in the Senate.
There are 100 "people" each representing a distinct constituency.
Do not expect a Senator from South Dakota to vote like Hillary.

And, when this happens, don't divorce the whole harem! :rofl:

[jpgray]

11. I find Kucinich to be the most comely houri of them all

:P

[Bluerthanblue]

12. a boss is someone you often don't have much control over- or

influence on.
They are also people who hold a position "above" you- with the power and authority to hire and fire.

An elected Representative is supposed to look to us- "the people" as being their "boss".

If we want to be pissed off at those individuals who act AGAINST our best interests- what is really wrong with that?

Blanket condemnations don't go over well in any situation. Not all repubs are angry, selfish, arrogant spoiled brats. But some are-

We should judge individuals, NOT 'groups'- if we don't, how is that not a bigotry in and of itself?

I'm pissed at the reps. who claim to care- but don't follow through with their votes or actions.

[Evoman]

13. Yeah, and if my wife disagreed with everything I did and stabbed me in the back,

I would divorce her fucking ass.

Especially if she fucked my boss behind my back every chance she got.

[jpgray]

14. You disagree with defending habeas corpus? Or do you not mean "everything?"

[Evoman]

15. So how did it work out for them...defending habeas corpus and all?

[jpgray]

16. I can't believe you're scorning a united vote to defend a 700 year-old human right

Do you have any scorn for the GOP's behavior? Do Dems deserve criticism in this case?

[Evoman]

18. I have more than enough scorn for everyone.

Like I said....my wife is fucking my boss, selling out on MOST of the positions I care about, and occasionally doing a half ass job at defending the others.

Still getting a fucking divorce.

Hell..maybe its time to get a new fucking job too.

[jpgray]

20. But if abandoning the only group that defends your positions empowers the truly evil people

What good does that do?

[Evoman]

25. Huh? I thought we were talking about shitty metaphors?

When did this thread become about something real? Did we drop the metaphor?

[jpgray]

29. Back at my first reply to you? Or did you think habeas corpus was pillow talk?

Or are you just trying to avoid an uncomfortable question?

[Evoman]

31. I'm trying to avoid an uncomfortable question AND I think habeas corpus was pillow talk.

So basically, you think I should stay with my wife because, yeah she fucks my boss behind my back. But everynow and then, she gives me a blowjob.

Besides, wasn't the vote on habeaus corpus defeated? And aren't people still being unlawfully detained? Are the democrats actually doing something? I'm lost.

[jpgray]

35. If she's the only person in the world who will value your beliefs

And the only alternative at present is a murderous bitch who actively wants to shit on your values, make herself rich, and hurt millions more people in millions more ways, then yeah. Unless you're kinky in a frightening way, yeah.

Despite the wife not being perfect, removing the alternative as a threat before abandoning your imperfect wife might be a good idea.

[provis99]

71. maybe the solution is don't be married

There's a reason why most Americans don't vote anymore; they've divorced both parties. Things will change once voting goes down to 1% turnout and we no longer have any legitimate faith in either party.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

72. Why is there a "no faith" tendency,...in our part of the world?

Doncha' wonder about that?

I do.

[smokey nj]

33. It would have been nice if there were a united vote to filibuster act that did

away with the 700 year-old human right in the first place. THAT would have been a defense, and it would have made yesterday's vote completely unnecessary. TWELVE Democratic Senators voted against habeas corpus before they voted for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Final_passage_in_the_Senate

[jpgray]

60. I'd rather punish the party that contained 53 of the 65 bad guys first

And the Democrats are the only vehicle for that. But yeah, there's no excuse for those twelve. Do those twelve undermine the party? Yeah. Does that make the whole -party- worthless and deserving of the primary punishment? Not in my opinion.

[JVS]

17. You overestimate how close people are to the party leadership.

If they do stuff we don't like, it's our right to dislike them. It's not like they are our kid or something.

[jpgray]

19. I agree. Up until the point people abandon the party and in doing elect more Republicans

I'm making an ass of myself in this thread, but the GOP needs absolute and total defeat. And sadly the Democrats are the only viable vehicle for it at this time. I wish we had IRV or a major third party, but we have to make the best of what we've got.

[JVS]

28. In what may be one of the most flamed metaphors of DU history, let me compare politics to dog fights

While it is true that we do have a dog in this fight, beyond its utility for us, there is no reason to wish for a retention of its institutional integrity. In fact, this dog is just a slightly less threatening dog than the Republican dog. There should be no hesitation to beat the dog when necessary. Especially when the dog doesn't want to fight. Pelosi takes impeachment off the table, people like Sheehan hit the dog by running for congress. Does it make the dog stronger? No, but the dog's strength is worthless if it doesn't fight.

[jpgray]

30. A 700-year-old human right was debased today by one political party, and defended by another

I choose to do everything in my power to remove the former as completely as possible from politics, even if the latter isn't very good at all. And the Democrats aren't very good. At all. But in this environment, they're the only vehicle that is capable of defeating the Republicans. And the Republicans cause far more harm to millions more people, so a bruised conscience and the shame of writing stupid metaphorical threads isn't much of a price to pay.

[JVS]

34. Yes but for a few years leading up to today that right was pissed on by BOTH parties

And perhaps more amazingly the party that finally came back to right side on this was stupid enough to make a more prominent gesture of telling off moveon (biting the hand that feeds it) in such a way that it overshadows their position on habeas corpus, because being seen as a defender of liberty is decidedly lame when you can condemn a bunch of dirty hippies instead.

[jpgray]

38. The Democrats chose to make that gesture more prominent? Or did the media?

It was an offensive fucking vote, but I'll take a meaningless symbolic opinion vote that's fucking offensive now and again if you make sure I can't be arrested and thrown in jail without evidence or charge. Would I rather we had a real opposition party? Yeah. But we don't. And splitting the progressive vote is going to empower the GOP without IRV or a major third party.

[JVS]

39. They're supposedly smart people. They should be able to anticipate and deal with consequences.

It's very basic PR

[jpgray]

40. Have you read analyses of the 2000 election coverage? Were "PR skills" the driving factor?

The press has decided in many cases to side with the GOP. Not in all cases, and it doesn't absolve the Democrats from running a poor opposition, but it isn't as simple as "make this prominent, make this not prominent."

[JVS]

43. Was the 2000 election an issue that the Democrats had a choice to bring to a vote or not?

Because the piece of shit condemnation of moveon was, and had they not decided that the public urgently needed congress to condemn the nefarious moveon organization, then none of this shitstorm would be happening. They fucked up.

[jpgray]

59. The Democrats suck too. Thing is, I want to punish the people that suck infinitely more

And the only vehicle for that is the Democrats. Next, I want to promote the left, and the media only recognize "the left" as the Democrats. Even more bizarre, they recognize PELOSI as being a far-left, SanFran-style liberal. That's ridiculous, but it goes to show that defeating the GOP = victory for the left, defeat for the right in the media. That it's not strictly true, has that ever mattered in the media? Since the only vehicle for handing a sound defeat to the GOP is the Democrats, I tie myself in embarrassing, self-hating knots to justify voting for them in the general election. Cleaning house and changing the party is of utmost importance, but destroying the GOP as much as possible takes precedence for me right now.

[JVS]

69. Then the dems need to learn not to suck because shit like the following link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1857270&mesg_id=1857270

Casts doubt on their willingness to serve as a vehicle for stopping anything

[jpgray]

70. True enough

However right now the reality is that the only party that has any statistical chance to defeat the GOP in as many elections possible is the Democratic party. Without IRV, therefore, I want people to vote D in close elections. That's the reason for this assholish thread.

[ljm2002]

21. Senate Democrats at times remind me of the wife who takes abuse from her husband...

...but only yells at those who try to help her get out of the situation.

[jpgray]

22. But again, isn't the one doling out the actual abuse the one that deserves to get punished?

[ulysses]

24. not to further torture the analogy,

but the abuse isn't stopping with the Dems. Real people are hurt when they cave, so it's more like the abused wife turns around and abuses the kids (us).

But yeah, that's a pretty tortured analogy at this point...

[jpgray]

27. But if the GOP isn't soundly defeated, far more real people will get hurt

They -initiate- those ugly policies that hurt the most people. You can't enable a policy if it isn't created.

[ulysses]

32. prior to Bill C., I'd have believed that wholeheartedly.

Since then, it seems a matter of time, not of numbers.

And there are all manner of policies out there, hoping to be enacted. What needs a sound defeat is conservatism.

[jpgray]

37. What does the press (and therefore much of the public) view as the left? Fucking Nancy Pelosi!

It's fucking crazy, but it's true. They see a victory for Democrats as a victory for the left. Even -bad- obvious rightwing Democrats are seen as "the left." To my mind a total defeat of the GOP in elections would set back conservatism back far more than simply not voting for Democrats. The media don't understand that people avoid the Democrats because they are too right-wing. For the media, the Democrats are "the left." Now if you can change the media, then by all means our options improve a lot. :D

[ulysses]

41. and between the media image and the reality

falls the shadow. You know that. A resounding Democratic victory will surely be an improvement - and I plan to vote solid Dem next year, at least at this point - but you know as well as I that it won't necessarily be a "victory for the left" by any stretch. Hell, a slowdown in the horror would be an improvement, but I think we can do better. I think we have to do better.

[jpgray]

46. You're right, but my short-term goal is for the GOP to get hurt real bad

My long term goal is to have a party (any party) actually represent progressive views and not jump in fear of classic propaganda cliches the right wing has used throughout all known history.

[ulysses]

48. a noble goal.

I don't think we can wait until it happens to start holding feet to fire, though.

I'm still thinking about your post re: unlocking the riddle of GD, btw. Any thoughts on how to get around that tendency? I'd like to explore that.

[jpgray]

61. Does there exist any evidence that losing elections changes Democratic party behavior?

Or do they look at GOP success and attempt to emulate that instead?

[ulysses]

66. well hell, the emulation of the GOP started in 1985.

There is some evidence that they at least try to understand *why* they lost when they lose. The assumption in '85, given the "Reagan Democrats", was that they were too liberal, so I don't think it's wildly off base to counteract that assumption if one doesn't agree.

Besides which, I've suspected for some time that Nader 2000 had a little to do with Dean's run in 2004. That's just a suspicion, though.

[ljm2002]

42. You have to break the cycle...

...and the abuser will not get any sort of punishment as long as the victim goes along with it.

How do you help the wife who actively resists your help? Answer: you cannot. Even if you force her to leave, she'll come running back. At that point she needs to hear some straight talk, assuming she has not been seriously hurt or worse in the meantime.

Now I don't want to try and take this analogy too far, it's been beaten to death and reality of course is a bit more complex. We're talking about groups, and even within the groups there are sub groups and sub currents and different dynamics. But the basic principle remains: Yes the Republics are primarily to blame for the mess we find ourselves in; but the Democrats have been enablers and downright complicit too.

[OzarkDem]

51. Dem Senate Caucus is in complete disarray

They can't even get their own members to vote for Dem legislation, how do they expect anyone from the GOP to do it?

[The Vinyl Ripper]

23. *Every* fucking issue?

How about the drug war?

There is only one Dem who supports ending the drug war and he basically doesn't talk about it much at all as far as I can tell.

Strangling the Military Industrial Complex with its own intestines?

I haven't heard a damn thing about that from anyone..

[jpgray]

26. Kucinich fulfills most of those requirements, but the best Dems are superior on all those issues

Does improvement matter to you, or just total victory? Do you have an "all or nothing" approach to most issues?

[zalinda]

44. Maybe a chicken analogy would be better

Suppose you had a flock of chickens, one of their jobs is to rid your garden of bugs (repubs), the other job is to give you eggs (good bills). Now, sometimes some of the chickens aren't going to do as much egg laying as you want, but they still keep the bugs at bay. So, the bugs get out of control for a week or two, do you kill a chicken or use bug spray (third party)? No, because the bug spray usually doesn't work or it poisons the chickens, and the bugs just reproduce faster and grow immune to the spray. What you want is more chickens, and as you get more chickens, the ones who aren't producing eggs will be "retired".

zalinda

[jpgray]

57. That's about 10,000 times better than my analogy

Which doesn't say much for yours. :P But seriously, that fits much better.

[Rex]

36. Dems do what they want, Repukes flow like a great swarm of fish.

Repukes are predictable and defeatist, Dems are independent and sometimes piss their party off to no end. Don't know what else to say about it.

[Flabbergasted]

45. Well thought out thread.

[AngryAmish]

47. I prefer to think some DUers stand on the corner, yelling at cars.

[Tsiyu]

73. Hey! Watch it!

On my way to the feed store after work, I had to drive through "downtown Sewanee."

I had seen some gals earlier walking on the sidewalk holding peace placards and one wearing a gown with a prominent peace symbol on it. The were headed toward the busy intersection across from the market.

Sure enough, on the corner at the light there was a Peace rally.

A sign said "Honk for Peace" so I did and blew them all a kiss.

They weren't exactly yelling but their signs were.

And maybe one of them was a DUer? :shrug:

[Zodiak]

49. Let me be clear

I honestly think the OP is out for the good of all, and that I applaud. However, I disagree with it, primarily because this has been the strategy for the last 4 election cycles and it has not gotten us more progressives, it has gotten us more enablers.

And so Bush continues on unabated. And the country is going down the drain.

I think the strategy of the OP is too slow considering the risks at hand these days. We cannot afford another 15 years of this...our party is completely broken, and so I do not see a difference between a broken majority and a broken supermajority. The good Democrats can do nothing because they are deliberately sabotaged by their own party!

I would counsel to make the Democratic party work for the people first. That still entails fighting from within....but it also means starving the beast within ourselves of money, support, and yes, votes.

Lastly...please understand that the "red state" argument for Democrats has not been adequately proven for 2007. Here is a map of Bush's approval ratings.



Under these circumstances, is there any reason at all to not do the right thing in every district? I would like to think that Democrats look at polls.

You can't change the media, but you can change people's attitudes about the media. We've already come a long way in that direction. The effectiveness of the media is paltry compared to 2003-2005. Things have changed.

[OzarkDem]

52. Our party holds the power

but they don't know how to lead.

[OzarkDem]

50. GOP isn't in charge in Congress, Dems are

So directing our advocacy efforts in their direction is appropriate.

If Dems have no intention of whipping votes, controlling their caucus and getting their legislation passed, they shouldn't bother to introduce it.

Republicans who are on the fence on these issues aren't going to jump ship when the Dem caucus is so weak and disorganized. What would be the point of getting GOP'ers to support Dem bills and amendments when our own Dems won't back them?

Our ire is directed right where it needs to be - at Dem leadership in Washington DC.

[jpgray]

53. I'm sorry, but I think the GOP needs several serious defeats. Starting with '08

After that, I'll be more sympathetic to those who want to abandon the Democrats.

[OzarkDem]

54. The Dems in DC are disorganized, sloppy

rudderless. No one is going to follow a group that can't get its own act together.

[OzarkDem]

55. I have no plans to abandon the Democrats

I do have plans to make sure we clean house and get rid of the dead wood.

[jpgray]

56. That's just fine by me

I'm tying myself in knots to try to explain why I think, as ineffective and bad as they can be, voting for Democrats and handing the GOP a serious defeat is best -for right now-. I understand why that gets seen as a disingenuous attempt to quash criticism, but all I can say is that it isn't meant that way.

[OzarkDem]

58. I understand

I think some people are new to being so closely involved in Dem politics they don't understand how important it is to exercise their role within the party.

Its easier than you think to influence things at the local and state level and pressure applied there can have an impact.

[jgraz]

62. Try this: One spouse stands idly by while the other beats the shit out of their kid

That may give you a different perspective on why people are so angry.

[jpgray]

63. First, punish the abuser. Then punish the enabler

Due to the lunacy of our two party system, punishing the enabler rewards the abuser, and punishing the abuser rewards the enabler. Horrible choice, but I choose the latter -at this time-.

[jgraz]

65. The problem is that the enabler is the only one who can stop the abuse

And the abuse needs to stop right fucking now.

Talking about elections is one thing, but I don't think we can wait until Jan 09 for the Dems to start leading.

[lukasahero]

64. Well yes but

(since you're the one who used the words "guy" who comes home and "yells at his wife", I'm hoping the usual disclaimer "some men" isn't needed here but...)

Men who come home and yell at their wives are generally doing so out of a sense of powerlessness. They "can't" yell at the boss so they yell at the person they feel they "do" have power over - the wife.

I don't believe your analogy is far off as I believe many here DO feel a sense of powerlessness which is why they rage here rather than doing anything substantive to change things. But I do think many are raging at ANYone and EVERYone just to rage rather than to resolve. If you feel you can't change anything anyway, why not rage rather than try?

PS - I've really been grooving on your posts as of late. Keep it up!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

67. Nothing is perfect, I agree. The problem is that we've all been wounded by the Repukes....

... and every time the Dems vote in agreement with the Repukes, they're sticking a red-hot poker into our already-existing wounds.

[jpgray]

68. I don't think anyone can argue with that