From a Lefty to the self-proclaimed Lefties here: Seven Points (a rant)

[Sparkly]

First, three disclaimers:

- I am about as left as they come. On those political compass charts, I’m –8.5 on both dimensions. I’m a socialist at heart, and consider it neither a bragging point nor a flaw -- just a neutral fact.

- Please don’t pretend this post is about free speech. It should go without saying that you’re free to post whatever you like within DU’s rules (as am I).

- It’s a rant. Sorry if it hurts the tender feelings of people who claim to be steeled for a revolution.


1. What “Left” Is: It’s a pretty broad term, so it’s always debatable (though rarely, if ever, debated here). But by any definition, we’re talking about political philosophy. We’re talking about the role of government; empowerment of people who are oppressed or exploited, especially by capitalism; the problems of class systems, etc. What we are NOT talking about is level of emotion about any particular issue or strong outspokenness about any particular issue. Vehement heartfelt hand-wringing angst about the war may come from a Lefty, but it’s not an automatic correlation. That distinction is rarely made here. Thus conservative and moderate politicians who speak in strong opposition to the US involvement in Iraq are sometimes embraced as “left,” while liberals whose political actions are measured are lambasted for being “right.”

2. “Left” and “Anti-war” are not strictly synonymous. There are conservatives, too, who are against the occupation in Iraq; and socialism, for example, can see militant revolution as progressive. (To the extent that pockets of the civil war in Iraq might involve struggle for power by a lower class, for example, some lefties might not disapprove; but the US involvement in this struggle is still, of course, folly at best.) The most direct means of changing power and moving a country left is, of course, militant uprising. Which leads to #3.

3. Reality is Important (even if it sucks). Are you prepared for a revolution against the U.S. war machine? No? Then is there any other alternative besides accepting the limitations of the democracy we have and working for change within this structure, by peaceful means? If there is, I’d like to know. Otherwise, what are people expecting? To me, it seems there’s a lack of clarity that has people banging their heads against a wall, running around in circles, and then complaining that it hurts and nothing is getting accomplished. Well yeah, for a small minority of people to make huge changes in a democratic, capitalist system is a pretty tall order. Realistically, a quick, thorough, radical leftward shift, through political and nonviolent means, is just not going to happen. Sorry! When it gets right down to it, our loudest voice is our vote. (And we all know the problems with that.)

4. Power is built upward. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: You can’t “move left” either a country or a party by whining, shouting in congressional meetings, harassing Democrats, lauding people like Ralph Nader, or voting for third-party candidates who are destined to lose. It’s not nearly as emotionally cathartic or exciting, but the most effective thing we can do is to try to convince others of our views, and increase the size of this minority at the grassroots. There is power in ideas, in persuasion, and ultimately in numbers, but not in decibels.

5. Not voting for Democrats is a luxury I can afford, but others cannot. Sure, I personally think I can survive if Republicans rule for the rest of my lifetime. If it gets untenable, I can even move to another country. But there are others who literally will not survive, both here and around the world. Do you really care about the social good? Contrary to the stated opinions of some here, the occupation in Iraq is not the only important issue at stake. There certainly are issues that impact the very foundations of our country, the very structures of our society, and the very survival of many, many people. (And there are certainly significant differences between the two parties.) So the claims of ideals and “conscience” in shunning Democrats ring very hollow to my ears.

6. You are not being persecuted for being “left.” Despite the all-too-common proud self-pity on that theme, I’ve rarely seen the term “lefty loonies” used to criticize the political views of being “lefty;” it’s generally more about being “loony.” And as a “lefty” myself, I’d appreciate unlinking the unfortunate correlation between “left” and “loony,” on all sides. Self-proclaimed leftists, please look closer at criticisms and see if they’re really about your leftist views (if any), or whether they may have more to do with perceptions that you are being unrealistic, obnoxious, and/or unhelpful to the progress that nearly ALL here at DU want. And to those who do disparage “lefty loonies,” please also separate behaviors, emotions, and methodology from actual leftist political views. Not all leftists are loony; not all loony people are leftist.

7. I am voting for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is. I have never voted for anybody but Democrats in my entire life. It is still the one best tool we have, in our system as it is, for having any real impact on government. It won’t get the country where I personally would like it to be, but that is just not going to happen in any case. We will continue to have a capitalist class system, corruption, corporatism, and slow, rusty political machinery. There will still be injustice, outrageous recklessness, discrimination and crazy rightwingers. The reality is, we cannot make all that go away. We can only keep pushing the boulder of progress slowly and deliberately uphill, with determination and resignation against the gravity of reality, if only at times to keep it from sliding downward any further.

Idealism is wonderful, unless it actually impedes real progress. Reality bites. It’s not nearly as emotionally rewarding as idealism, either, but it’s trump. That’s why, while my views may match a third party candidate, this Lefty will always vote for Democrats. Always, and without apology.

:rant:

[ClassWarrior]

1. Not voting for Democrats is a luxury I can afford, but others cannot.

How eloquent. Thank you.

NGU.

[tomg]

233. While I agree, I would suggest a

slight variant. I always vote for a Democrat, but I don't always vote for the Dem on the Dem line. While not voting for the Democrat is a luxury we can't afford, not always voting on the Dem line is.
Incidentally, for a rant, this was pretty damned articulate and well-stated. Nice job.

[cachukis]

280. The attainment of an ideal is often the beginning of disillusion.

"The attainment of an ideal is often the beginning of disillusion." Stanley Baldwin
I teach low level readers in an inner city high school in TPA. They all claim to be able to read. The do read words. This quote was part of my lesson plan yesterday. Ideals are often a horse of a different color when scrutinized closely. Only two of my 150 students got it.
This guy just cut to the quick.
I started to read the commentary and said to myself, "Should I cut in?"
Chastize if you wish.
There is tremoundous energy here at DU.
Often I feel it is an opportunity merely to vent.
Should I take my thrill of educating to the highest level studentry or remand myself to the drudgery of throwing lifelines to the endless grapling of ankles?
This forum is no different than what I deal with every day.
The emotional quotient of contributers leads me to believe that the simplicity of the Republican message has merit.
Yet I will not give in.
Read on or throw back what you will.
The OP is right on.
Rome wasn't built in a day.........
Cachukis

[1monster]

375. I'm a substitute teacher who works quite often (and for long term periods)

in a small high school set up for low level students (1s and 2s on the FCATS).

Even if you broke down "The attainment of an ideal is often the beginning of disillusion" to the easiest verbal terms available, I'm not sure the students I work with would "get it."

Most of the students in this school are what I call "concrete thinkers."

If it is solid, if they can see it and touch it, they will understand much better. They can be led to understanding by giving them an example of something they can understand. For example: Did you ever really really want something, beg for it and work for it over a period of time, and then when you finally got it, find that it wasn't anywhere near as good as you thought it was?

They understand that.

I've found that many reasonably intelligent people are also concrete thinkers or lazy thinkers. They either can't or don't look beyond the surface.

That is why the simple message works for the Republicans.

But concrete thinkers can be led to the more complicated higher level asbtract thinking in several steps.

It takes time, understanding, patience, belief, and probably a certain amount of trickery in getting the concrete thinker to, at least temporarily, take a leap from the comfort of the solid and predictable to the colorful freedom of the abstract.

I have been doing that with my traditional Republican indoctrinated neighbor for yeas.

She has loosened up considerably, but hilariously believes that I have become more conservative (even as I have become more liberal) while she has changed only slightly.

[cachukis]

388. I concur with your methodology re, low levels and Republicans.

In my class I did model a paraphrase somewhat similar to yours and asked them to do so with another phrase.
My intent however, was to challenge this audience to really evaluate the OP and its opinions ala Stanley Baldwin.
Sometimes we think we know what we are about and then upon reflection we realize the truth in what we've criticized. It doesn't have to be the whole truth, but mind opening.
Your insight in dealing with 1's and 2's is remarkable. They are, unfortunately, comprehending at a grade level of from 4th to 8th if the are in HS. FCAT expects 10th.
Your point that there are reasonably intelligent and concrete thinkers is without quarrel.
Would that in this climate, we'd have the time to scaffold that concrete.
By the way, I scaffold all day.
I started as a sub years ago and am grateful for that experience.
Perhaps on another thread to be continued...

Cachukis

[tomg]

376. I completely agree

with the OP, particularly about not having the luxury. All I was suggesting was that sometimes we vote for the Democrat when he or she appears on another line that is more progressive or further left as a way of nudging the dems along. I certainly wasn't chastizing anyone, let alone the op or class warrior. In fact, I intended to respond to the op, but hit the reply to class warrior, whose sentiments I also agree with - eloquent. Like you, I am a teacher ( my wife is also a teacher with a student body similar to yours), and I know how long and slow it can be. When I was a lot younger, I was a purist. Now I m a progressive.

Stanley Baldwin, incidentally, is a pretty interesting figure in mid-twentieth century British politics.

[papau]

387. I agree - very well said rant by the OP n/t

n/t

[cali]

2. glad to be the first to rec

I think that's a great rant. The only place I part company with you, is on always voting for dems. In Vermont there's viable Progressive Party, in Burlington there's IRV, and of course, I vote for Bernie.

[Sparkly]

5. Very good point, thanks.

"Viable" is the operative word!

[ShortnFiery]

3. Well, to me "the left" comprises of Anti-Corporations FIRST Democrats.

Therefore, if the nominee is a DLC or Third Way Democrat ... it's All Pro-Corporations All of the Time.

Bottom line: Our definitions of "the left" differ. :hi:

[Sparkly]

8. Are any Democrats really "ANTI" corporations?

I don't think any are.

I think it's about the role of private money in relation to government; of moderating capitalism with social 'programs'; of regulations, unions, lobbies, worker's rights, tax policies, etc. But none of them are flatly against corporations as corporations.

[Hydra]

11. I am!

:hi:

[Sparkly]

13. I meant the politicians. nt

[Hydra]

47. 2 options on that

1. Grind the Corps to dust- no corps, no support for corps by our reps

2. Change the rules so that money and corp media were not the most important things for being elected. As long as you have a system where the table is slanted, you'll only get people who learn to play the slant.

[Sparkly]

53. HOW?

How do you propose to "grind the corps to dust?" How do you get "our reps" to give no support to them?

How do you change the rules?

[ProudDad]

206. Don't buy their SHIT...

withhold your dollars...

[Sparkly]

219. Boycotts? That's it? nt

[liberaldemocrat7]

259. Please make these phone calls today.

Please make these phone calls today. Please get your friends and as many other people to make these phone calls today. Copy the text and send it to as many people as you can in email. Print it on index cards and show it to people, give it to people or leave an index card in public places. We're going to take back America peacefully, just like Gandhi threw the British out of India in 1947 with boycotts.

Call GOP contributor and war contractor General Electric Corporation at 203 373 2211 and ask for the public relations department. Tell the person in public relations that you want the GE CEO to get Bush to end the war in Iraq and then Bush resign with Cheney and until that happens you will not buy any GE products and that you will tell your friends about this.

Call GOP contributor Rite Aid at 1-800-325-3737 and tell the person to get the CEO to get the GOP to enact HR 676 Single payer universal health care and repeal Medicare Part D and place the drug benefit in Medicare Part B covering 80% of drugs with no extra premiums, no extra deductibles, no means tests, no coverage gaps, and remove the means test for Medicare Part B and until that happens, you won't buy ANYTHING from Rite Aid.

Call GOP contributor Wendy's restaurants at 614 764-3553 and Tell the person in public relations that you want their CEO to get the GOP to help enact a $10/HR MIN. WAGE into law and until this happens you will not go to a Wendy's Restaurant.

AFTER YOU HAVE MADE THESE CALLS TELL ME IN A PRIVATE MESSAGE.

[ProudDad]

321. It's the only fucking thing we've got...

You'd be amazed at how well you can live without even entering a Wal-Mart or Safeway or 'buying' a new living room suite from Rent-A-Center... :hi:

[midlife_mo_Jo]

60. Now, that is a looney left idea!

:evilgrin:

Meaningful regulation is very viable.

Getting rid of corporations is not.''

I would go so far as to say that a lot of progress/invention is what would be ground into the dust!

[Hydra]

62. Really?

how "viable" was getting torture and domestic spying legalized?

We have got to get outside the box- there's only death in here

[midlife_mo_Jo]

83. Not the same thing.

If you think we're EVER going to get rid of corporations - well - that's just a good example of a looney left idea. You're wasting your time on that one.

For starters, much of our progress/inventions has been made by the pooling of capital. Capitalism/corporations work well within a mixed economy with good and proper regulation.

It's ideas like yours that scare off a good portion of the electorate.

[Hydra]

107. Nice try

Anti-trust laws exist for a reason. What I refer to as a "corp" is a company large enough to get it's own legislation passed. If it's large enough to get special favors, it's too large not to be considered to be allowing competition to exist in any meaningful form.

Nothing useful comes from people with no reason to strive, and every reason to charge more for an inferior product.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

128. Well, that's NOT what you wrote

You wrote: ". Grind the Corps to dust- no corps, no support for corps by our reps."

No corps means "no corps" to me. That is a looney left idea. I realize you posted it as an option, but it's a looney left option. :evilgrin:

Furthermore, you also wrote when you had a chance to correct our impression, "how "viable" was getting torture and domestic spying legalized?

It's pretty easy to assume that you meant "no corporations" at all.

[bobbolink]

136. The OP was getting away from ad hominems.. could you please reply in kind?

Just what do you really hope to accomplish by telling someone on the same side as you that they are "looney"???

Could we pleeeeez strive for some peace here?

Thank you.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

139. Did you not see the evil grin?

I understood the post to say that one option was to get rid of corporations, and with my comment and " "evilgrin" " I was trying to point out that that is one of the unrealistic ideas that won't get us anywhere.

Furthermore, I am not under the impression that saying an idea is looney is the same thing as saying a person is looney.

[bobbolink]

142. Well, do whatever to the atmosphere you choose to do.

I was glad to see one OP that actually wasn't creating a war.

It would have been nice to see that continued throughout the thread.

But, you like to stir things up, have at it.

Just try to remember where peace starts, eh?

[midlife_mo_Jo]

166. I don't believe in unilateral disarmament

People farther to the left of me and others seem to get a lot of delight in making attacks on us. Do you call them out, as well? In fact, I don't think I've ever seen anyone defend us.

By the way, the subject line is supposed to be funny.

[bobbolink]

248. Then fire away. It makes life so much f-u-n

[eridani]

291. What's "unilateral disarmament"?

Do you actually suppose that closing all our overseas military bases will leave us unable to defend ourselves? What, exactly, does our military have to be "strong" enough to do? Conquer every country with significant energy reserves by force? Or will backing off and just defending our own territory do?

[midlife_mo_Jo]

378. That was a joke having NOTHING to do with the military!

I get harassed for my opinions, but I was told that referring to an idea as "the looney left" - I didn't say the person was looney - was not conducive to peace.

So, I said I wouldn't unilaterally disarm.

Get it? :)

[Hydra]

143. You know, corps aren't really required

You suggested that the reason corps worked was the pooling of capital. If by capital, you mean greenbacks, those are worthless and can be created by the government.

In such a case, a business with an idea such as improved solar panels or more efficient engines for planes could submit to the gov't for research funds and be approved or disapproved based on their proposal. There would be no need for a Wall Street approach where the investors are expecting to suck all of the possible profit out of a company.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

151. Investors suck profit

because they risk their capital.

Again, regulation is the key, imo.

Look, profit isn't a dirty word. Americans win more Nobel prizes in things like science and medicine than most of Europe combined for a reason. Profit does drive innovation better than government, and it was working pretty well (not without some problems, I admit) prior to Reaganomics.

[eridani]

294. The three greatest medical discoveries of the 20th century were made entirely OUTSIDE--

--of the profit system. I mean the discovery of penicillin, the role of insulin, and the Salk vaccine. None of the inventors profited. Of course with their reputations established, they got funding for whatever they wanted to work on in the future. Few really productive scientists want more than that.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

386. Well, take a look at the Nobel prize

winners since about the 1940's for medicine, physics, and chemistry, and you will see a LOT of people from different countries who have been funded by corporate interests, and you'll also notice that the United States has more than it's share of winners. We even have winners from other countries who win the prize while working here in the U.S for corporations. Just the technology needed for some research these days costs millions and millions compared to what Salk had in his lab. :)

Do you realize that M.D. Anderson has a larger research budget than many first world countries? Research it. It's true. If we get what "I" want, for starters - single payer healthcare, much better funding of schools, much greater financial help with higher education, affordable housing for the poor, elderly and disabled (with no crappy 5 year waits), better funded social security, etc. national childcare for poor and lower income families, etc, we aren't going to pay for this by nationalizing every damn thing. You stated that few really productive scientists want more than good funding - well - I agree with you. But most countries don't have the budgets to fund all the cutting edge technology and medical research that we'd like to see funded.

REGULATION and more progressive TAXATION is the key. Revamping the copyright and patent laws would also help. I also wouldn't allow drug companies to charge Americans more than other countries for drugs. We're getting screwed big time just on that one thing.

By the way, I'm a stay at home mom who has a part-time business. I'm not even incorporated. haha My husband works for an employer who is incorporated, but he has less than 50 employees.

[eridani]

390. The largest number of our Nobelists have been government-funded

Or funded by foundations which get tax breaks for that very purpose, which is the same difference. Big Pharma spends far more on marketing than on research.

[ProudDad]

209. Ah, more bullshit from the pro-corporate wing...

"much of our progress/inventions has been made by the pooling of capital"

ALL progress/inventions have been the work of individual human beings -- sometimes working together, sometimes apart. Most have come up with their "inventions" while NOT laboring for corporations...

Most corporations, since their ONLY imperative is to make a profit for their shareholders, have committed far more evil, anti-progressive, anti-humane acts than they have "contributed" to human progress. Corporations EXPLOIT, they don't innovate. Corporations are Psychopaths...


"THE PATHOLOGY OF COMMERCE: CASE HISTORIES

To assess the "personality" of the corporate "person," a checklist is employed, using diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization and the standard diagnostic tool of psychiatrists and psychologists. The operational principles of the corporation give it a highly anti-social "personality": it is self-interested, inherently amoral, callous and deceitful; it breaches social and legal standards to get its way; it does not suffer from guilt, yet it can mimic the human qualities of empathy, caring and altruism. Four case studies, drawn from a universe of corporate activity, clearly demonstrate harm to workers, human health, animals and the biosphere. Concluding this point-by-point analysis, a disturbing diagnosis is delivered: the institutional embodiment of laissez-faire capitalism fully meets the diagnostic criteria of a "psychopath."

http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm

[midlife_mo_Jo]

237. And more BULLSHIT from you.

Who's talking about laissez-faire capitalism? I'm not.

Sorry, but I don't want to live in a third world country as long as we're all "equal."

I support regulated capitalism as part of a mixed economy, as do most people. France, England, Canada, etc., etc. all allow for corporations.

Tell me, how many Nobel prizes in medicine has Cuba won lately?

[reggie the dog]

276. France

has controls over their corparations today, but Sarkozy will probably fuck that up for us.

We have 5 weeks paid vacations minimum plus 12 holidays and a 35 hour work week, not to mention national health care, national trains and national electricity.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

282. But France does have corporations

that aren't owned by the government and they're an integral part of the economy.

[reggie the dog]

284. it sure does

there are just rules in place that make competition from smaller companies more viable.

[ShortnFiery]

124. Did I not type, "Anti-Corporations FIRST" ?!? Inappropriate extrapolation.

And I don't appreciate being called loony. My views would have been considered mainstream Democratic during the 1970s, i.e., before Reagonomics and Bush/Clinton fandango Presidencies.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

129. I don't believe I was responding to you.

But let me check the order of the posts again. I think I was responding to Hydra.

[ShortnFiery]

152. True, however, the term "loony left" is as distasteful as "demoRATS" and is, IMO, a tell

suggesting someone who's a dyed in the wool centrist - or at least someone UNCOMFORTABLE with those of us who believe int *REGULATED CAPITALISM.*

You're correct and I stand corrected, in that, I should have addressed this to the person above.

Regardless, this sub-thread is, IMO, embracing what I consider "a false premise" of those of us who regard ourselves unabashed LIBERALS. :shrug:

[midlife_mo_Jo]

156. I strongly believe in regulation

But if anyone suggests that we can get rid of corporations altogether, I still submit that it's a completely unrealistic idea. It's ideas like that that get lumped in with the democrats and give fodder to talk radio and the republicans.

I believe in a mixed economy - leaning strongly towards regulated capitalism for good reason. It's working in many countries better than any other alternatives.

FURTHERMORE, I'm tired of the fact that ad hominem attacks are only supposed to go one way. People who are more to the left of me and others on this board have no problem making repeated ad hominem attacks on us. I don't see them getting called out.

[ProudDad]

211. "I don't see them getting called out"

You're not very observant... :shrug:

[PassingFair]

366. We can get rid of their...

"personhood".

And should.

[lateo]

364. Me too!

But, of course, that needs to be defined.

[nashville_brook]

23. there's a difference btwn "liberal" and "progressive" and it's well drawn here ->

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-bet_b_9140.html

David Sirota

What's the Difference Between a Liberal and a Progressive?

"...there is a fundamental difference when it comes to core economic issues. It seems to me that traditional "liberals" in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A "progressive" are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules."

I think this is where this issue of having a "spine" comes in. Sirota shows that "progressivism" is a stronger stance than "liberalism." Progressivism uses a stick; liberalism uses a carrot. It's more difficult (impossible?) for politicians to use the stick against corporations they take money from. So, we get lots of weak "suggestions" for corporations to play nice.

The lefty-left, or progressive approach, recognizes that corporations are beasts with no conscience and that it's our *responsibility* to make them play nice. It's our responsibility to make rules and enforce rules that protect people from the rapacious behavior of non-human corporations.

[Sparkly]

36. I think that's a little arbitrary.

They aren't mutually exclusive. As labels, "Progressive" began as an alternative term to "Liberal" after Republicans made Liberal into a bad word. Now people are looking for meanings behind the labels.

Fine -- If those become definitions, I'll accept them as the standards. But then we're talking left (liberal), lefty-left (progressive) and lefty-lefty-left (anti-capitalist, anti-class system), and left/leftyleft/leftyleftyleft involving all three in some way.

Sorry if I sound facetious. I think it's all integrated. It all involves the roles of government and labor/goods/money.

[Bongo Prophet]

232. I was wondering what lefty-left was! Mebbe I'm one? Damn! not according to the guy to the left of me

There will always be someone to the left who will call you a corporate whore, and to the right who will call you looney or whatnot. Pinko. Petite bourgeoisie! Commie! Fascist! OY!!!

Battles older than you or me, for sure.
Meanwhile the spectrum shifts ever rightward over the last few decades.
Nixon would be almost liberal, and Goldwater a Left moderate.


Maybe a grading system is in order:

L-1 through L-infinity


Words are tricky, and LABELS are tricky -- but all this could be pretty fun and enlightening were it not for the acrimony.
Makes it hard to breathe, much less discuss nuance.
You deserve cred for trying though, Sparkly!

[LandOLincoln]

283. I have to disagree with you on that, Sparkly.

It wasn't the Republicans who made Liberal a dirty word. It was the radical leftists of the 60s who did that. They all thought they were Che Guevara, and us traditional Liberals were, you know, pussies.

Plus ca change...

[cali]

127. That's one person's opinion. Hardly definative. It's an opinion YOU

choose to use as your definition.

And the rest of your post is simply pulled out of the ether. Liberalism uses a carrot? Progressivism uses a stick? Please provide some evidence that anyone besides you, uses that as a definition.

Corporations are beasts? Anthropomorphism. Oh, and us liberals have long known that corporations aren't people and don't have consciences. And have also known that we need effective and strong regulation. YOU don't get to claim that as your private purview. Sorry.

[King Coal]

184. I thought I told you to be nice.

:smoke:

[Bongo Prophet]

234. Some use carrots, some use sticks. I like peacepipe politics.

I agree, it is impossible to achieve any clarity with no agreed definition of terms.

A discussion of philosophy or ontology, etc. is much better over dinner/drinks/smoke in person and with respect.
Shouting in a battle zone? Not so much.

[defendandprotect]

186. self-delete

[NoGodsNoMasters]

345. Excellent point...

And i think THIS is the problem, of course I wouldn't vote republican, and third party obviously isn't viable,... But even the dems are generally far to the right of they're constituency. During his presidential campaign Sen. kerry (Not a bad guy, just sayin'..) was asked about state/nationalized health care and replied something to effect of too extreme, voters aren't behind it. We all know the converse is overwhelmingly so. MY solution is CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. tattoo it on you're foreheads! i have said for years that THIS needs to become a big, sexy issue. It would give guys like Kucinich an ACTUAL chance, it would widen the diversity in our choices of representatives and in our political debate, and OUR CANDIDATES WOULDN'T BE BEHOLDEN TO THE BUSINESSES THEY SHOULD BE REGULATING!!! Thats' my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Greyhound]

370. Right after nationwide, publicly hand counted, paper ballot voting.

:hi:

[tigereye]

273. the left is very old and very broad and quite complex

seems like a pretty limited perspective to me.

[PDJane]

4. I tend to agree, with on caveat;

I believe the majority of the common folk in the country are "left." Between 65 and 75% of them, no matter what. The problem is that they are uninformed and brainwashed into believing they're "right." This is on, I admit, limited experience; however, this is true of almost every American friend I have.

"Politics is not the art of the possible. It's the choice between the unpalatable and the disastrous."
J.K. Galbraith

[Sparkly]

6. On most issues, they do side with Democrats.

You're right -- on issues alone, even without identifying themselves and liberal or Democrat, a majority do seem to agree with key platform positions. However, I guess "left" in that case is a relative term. I don't think of those as being "left." Technically, wouldn't that be the real center?

[Common Sense Party]

178. .

"this is true of almost every American friend I have."

Well, birds of a feather tend to flock together, so you may not have a broad enough sample.

I think most Americans hold some views that are "left" and some that are "right," but they don't really define themselves as centrist. They pick a team and stick with it, or go with whoever pisses them off less in a given election year.

[Marrah_G]

7. What a great post

Thank you.

[Lerkfish]

9. our definitions differ, but I presume everyone who has used the term "looney leftist' here

will agree with your rant.

I think you're attempting to define what's in a room while standing outside of the room.

[cali]

10. You're trying not only to

own the room, but you're trying to stand in the doorway like a bouncer at a hip club, and decide who's "cool" enough to enter.

There really are only a small number of people like you: Judgemental and attempting to impose a litmus test on who's ideologically pure enough to call themselves a liberal/progressive. In a way, it's quite funny.

[Lerkfish]

12. did you by any chance read the OP?

the irony is palpable. And I was being extremely respectful and polite in my post.

[Sparkly]

14. What irony?

I don't understand your point.

[Lerkfish]

16. my reference is to cali's post

s/he said: " You're trying not only to

own the room, but you're trying to stand in the doorway like a bouncer at a hip club, and decide who's "cool" enough to enter"

I found that ironic since the whole point of your rant was to do exactly that.

Your post, in and of itself is not ironic.

[Sparkly]

19. You read my post, and THAT is what you got from it?

Seriously??

You think I'm "trying to stand in the doorway like a bouncer at a hip club, and decide who's "cool" enough to enter""??

What's the club, exactly? What do you think I'm calling "cool?" What is it I'm saying people may/may not enter?

I can't make any sense of that description applied to my post.

[Lerkfish]

22. I'm begining to see that you and cali are irony-impaired.

"from a Lefty to the self-proclaimed Lefties here"

is exactly the same as "trying to stand in the doorway like a bouncer at a hip club, and decide who's "cool" enough to enter"

all I said, respectfully, was that our definitions differ, and that you are attempting to define what's in a room from outside the room.

This isn't really rocket science, therefore I conclude you cannot see the irony on purpose.

[Sparkly]

29. Perhaps you are communication-impaired or point-impaired.

I'm not defining anybody -- that is why I refer to "SELF-proclaimed lefties," not lefties by any one particular definition.

So what's your point?

:shrug:

[Lerkfish]

33. 50 miles over your head, apparently.

I was disagreeing with your definitions. now you claim not to have defined anything. Your entire rant is ABOUT defining. YOU get to decide who is a "self-proclaimed Leftie".

like I said, its not really rocket science. Its not that difficult a concept: your rant is to recalibrate definition of a term to YOUR preferred definition. I reject your definition. Then you claim you're not defining anything. One of us is not being forthright about what we're saying.

:shrug:

[Sparkly]

43. I see - I'm just too dumb to understand your point.

Which is "not really rocket science" and is "not that difficult a concept." If went right over my head -- 50 miles high -- and surely not because of anything in YOUR argument. Oh, no... :sarcasm:

Look again at my "definition." I pointed to a popular political "compass" equation often cited on DU, and then drew a very broad, open set of terms in my #1. If there is some "definition" there that you disagree with, perhaps you'd like to point it out or better yet, start another thread to debate what "LEFT" actually IS. I think that would be a worthwhile discussion, seriously.

I made quite a number of points in the OP. If all you're concerned about is a game of gotcha about defining, not defining, wrongly defining, or whatever you're trying to get at, you really missed the point. "50 miles over your head, apparently."

[leftist_not_liberal]

246. It would seem that your point breaks down here:

"YOU get to decide who is a 'self-proclaimed Leftie'."

Doesn't the person doing the 'self-proclaiming' have role of decider in this?

[Lerkfish]

254. um, no.

sorry.
the person making the label in the first place, even if the label is "self-labeler" is the one trying to calibrate the definition to their own terms.

nice try, though.

[Tech 9]

272. No

Setting aside this particular debate, people can't simply self-identify as anything they like without scrutiny.

[stimbox]

95. Self-proclaimed has a condescending tone.

Are you also a Self-proclaimed Lefty?

[Sparkly]

102. Yes, I am a Self-proclaimed Lefty. nt

[nashville_brook]

32. you're quoting cali -- not lerky

[Sparkly]

45. "the whole point of your rant was to do exactly that."

I know who I'm quoting.

[cali]

15. I certainly did. What is it you find so objectionable.

You didn't expound. I don't read minds. And I thought your comment was NOT particularly polite or respectful; you essentially told the OP that he/she wasn't a "real" leftist or liberal. That's judgemental not respectful.

[Lerkfish]

18. and you still don't see the irony?

you said I " you essentially told the OP that he/she wasn't a "real" leftist or liberal. That's judgemental not respectful."

reread the OP, it is exactly telling us who is a "real" leftist or liberal.

I'm amazed you cannot see the irony here.

and yes, I was respectful. I said our definitions differ.

[cali]

21. Nope. The OP was a quite a bit more complex

than that, and was focused more on behavior than belief. But speaking of that, you'll believe whatever you wish to believe- as will I.

[Lerkfish]

26. I only disagreed with OP

and respectfully so. Does this warrant some sort of third degree? are people not allowed to disagree?

:shrug;

[cali]

34. Third degree? Alas, I know you're not kidding.

What are you even doing on DU if you dislike being challenged to such a degree? If you want an echo chamber, I can think of places where you'll be happier.

[Lerkfish]

37. again, the irony is palpable

I disagree, and you tell me to leave because I dislike being challenged?

wow. do you even understand what the term "irony" means?

[cali]

49. Wow. You labelled my challenging you the third degree AND

mischaracterized what I said. And the DU rules say the same thing about GD- not a good place if you're thin skinned, and if you think that what I said to you in this thread, is the third degree, you ARE being thin skinned.

I suggested you might be happier in another kind of forum. That's NOT the same as telling you to leave.

And sorry, not only do I understand what irony means, but I've got a good working knowledge of rhetoric, in general. You're the one that seems to be misapplying the word.

[nashville_brook]

lerk is coming from the position of being the mentioned "out-group" -- one who has

been accused of being "loony left."

if the OP's intention is to reach out (which is kinda seems to me is the case), then why not put that into practice in the very thread where "reaching out" is being discussed?

[cali]

38. It seems to me that the OP is arguing against that term,

and I've been called all kinds of things here as well, that I find offensive too. That's just par for the course on this type of board, and is addressed in the DU rules.

[Sparkly]

46. Why is anyone accused of being "loony left?"

Is "left" the accusation? I don't think so.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

175. It's my understanding

that "looney" refers to ideas that have no expectation of ever coming to fruition, and whose existence destroy the credibility of the democratic party.

[bobbolink]

147. I think maybe I was a bit hasty in my first reading of the OP.

*I* thought it was an attempt to actually stir polite discussion.

I think I was mistaken.

You *were* polite, but.... I think it's not possible to keep that atmosphere at DU.

We tried, Lerky, but I don't think peace is that popular anymore....

:cry:

[Sparkly]

157. Yes, peace is popular.

:eyes:

Just stating my views. If it "stirs" thoughts and discussions, great! If it's not sufficiently polite... oh well!

[Lerkfish]

196. yes, I think I misunderstood you earlier as well, sorry about that.

[nashville_brook]

30. it's it obvious that there's division here between "liberal," "left," "lefty-left," etc...

wouldn't it be better to find common ground?

[cali]

42. You know, I find that comment slightly ironic.

On another thread you asked me for my definition of progressive when I self identified as liberal/progressive. I gave you a thoughtful response that was a couple of paragraphs long, and you responded with a dismissive one liner that had nothing to do with what I wrote. Respectfully, that's not the way to go about finding common ground. Nor is labelling people who don't agree with you "good germans".

[Auntie Bush]

27. Glad to read this kind of post. We need more like it. K & R n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. The votes of the "left" are available to the Democrats.

At this time, the vote is, as you say, the best tool we have in our system. The Democrats, instead of seeking the votes of the left, seek the votes of the right and tailor their politics to get them.

You say that we must "keep pushing the boulder of progress uphill". Unfortunately, the politicians are busily trying to push it downhill in the name of "political reality".

I don't consider myself an "idealist" when I vote 3rd party, or write in a candidate, I consider it an obligation to no longer participate in, and enable, a corrupt system.

“Freedom for supporters of the government only, for members of one party only, no matter how big its membership may be is, no freedom at all. Freedom is always freedom for the man who thinks differently."
Rosa Luxemburg

[Sparkly]

24. The real "left" is a SMALL minority

Why should the Democrats not appeal for the most votes in order to win election?

Do you think appealing to the far left will garner them the most votes?

As a lefty, what do you think is the most effective thing we can do about it all?

In my opinion, voting for a 3rd party is indeed enabling a corrupt system. It does nothing to mitigate the erosion of important principles, let alone doing anything for actual progress.

Political reality sucks, but it exists nonetheless.

Freedom is both a matter of thought AND action; my actions in voting for Democrats do not mean my thinking isn't free or "different."

[robinlynne]

40. why should the democrats not appeal for the most votes in order to win election?

Democrats should do the right thing, should stay honest, should NOT pander to big business and/or rightwing platforms, and the votes will come. For example, if the democrats in power made sure elections were honest in this country, that alone would win the elections for the dems. But it would mean an end to backroom deals with the right. which is what they are doing to "win elections".

[Sparkly]

71. "And the votes will come."

I agree the voting systems are screwed.

But I do NOT see evidence that positions any further left of where the Democrats are will garner them any MORE votes. I think that's nice to believe, but it's just not the case.

"The right thing" is different to different people.

And politics, by its very nature, is dirty business.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. Then what's the point?

If the Democrat party moves to the right to "win" against the right, then what has been won? It's the "not as bad" refrain that we've been hearing for as long as I can remember.

We had 8 years of Clinton "triangulating" the party to the right. How is that "progress"? We have Democrats in congress voting with Republicans to fund a killing field, condemn the left, curb abortion rights, curtail individual freedoms, etc, all in the name of "realistic politics". Progress?

You say that "idealism" is all very nice but unrealistic. Yet, you then indulge in the idealism that perpetuating a corrupt system will somehow make it better.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[Sparkly]

80. Oh, come on.

You either didn't read my post, or didn't understand it.

I did not say the Democratic party should move to the right to win. I've never said that, ever.

I didn't say "Idealism is all very nice but unrealistic." Ideals are essential, but so is reality.

I did not say "perpetuating a corrupt system will somehow make it better."

I did not say anything contrary to your Jefferson quotes.

If you'd like to discuss anything I DID say, please do.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

91. I did read your post and I did understand it.

You are advocating that we "leftists" vote for the Democratic candidates no matter what their stances because, despite their rightward drift to "appeal to voters", they are likely to continue, or not impede, progress. I didn't say that you "said" that the party should move to the right to win. I said that you are willing to accept that rightward tilt by acquiescence.

And, I'll stick with my evaluation of what you did say.

[Sparkly]

96. Clearly you did not.

I gave MY perspective and MY rationale for MY decisions.

You are completely misstating what I said, advoated, and am "willing to accept."

Go ahead and stick with your "evaluation of what I did say." Truthiness is great.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

109. To quote your OP.

I am voting for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is.

We can only keep pushing the boulder of progress slowly and deliberately uphill, with determination and resignation against the gravity of reality, if only at times to keep it from sliding downward any further.

Idealism is wonderful, unless it actually impedes real progress. Reality bites. It’s not nearly as emotionally rewarding as idealism, either, but it’s trump. That’s why, while my views may match a third party candidate, this Lefty will always vote for Democrats. Always, and without apology.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: You can’t “move left” either a country or a party by whining, shouting in congressional meetings, harassing Democrats, lauding people like Ralph Nader, or voting for third-party candidates who are destined to lose.

Pray tell, then, given the quotes above, what you ARE advocating.

[Sparkly]

119. Do you have a question?

I thought I was pretty clear.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

161. So did I.

[charlie]

61. Do the denizens of Bob Jones U comprise a LARGE majority?

Our current president and other Repub presidential hopefuls made treks there seeking votes. On the other hand, our presidential frontrunner just voted to condemn that "leftist" org, MoveOn. Meanwhile, "mainstream" Rush Limbaugh is an honorary member of the House, has been for over 12 years. There's a lesson there, if you want to see it.

[Sparkly]

81. No, they don't.

What's the lesson, do you think?

[charlie]

134. The GOP doesn't distance itself from or denigrate its hard right partisans

There is no org analogous to the DLC with top tier Republicans in its thrall. They don't openly treat their Michael Moores as gross embarassments. They staunchly defend even the most incendiary utterances of their nutter hordes (witness the Limbaugh imbroglio going on right now). The hard right isn't treated as a mere vote entitlement by the GOP.

[redqueen]

173. Excellent points...

*sigh*

[LiberalLovinLug]

389. Lefties can learn from GOP

Respecting and listening to your base voters, in the case of the Republicans its the "have mores", the religious fascists, and the pea-brained.

You say "Do you think appealing to the far left will garner them the most votes?"

I say YES. The reason why Bush got so many votes from the independent voter is that he was seen as a leader who always stuck to his 'principles' no matter how much the 'looney left' criticized his policies.

The Democrats look weak and disloyal when they ignore their base and grovel at the feet of the Big Business elite. So not only do they loose the votes from that base, as well as garner a lot of anger, they also loose respect and votes from the independents. If they took a page from their counterparts, would some of those fence-sitters will jump ship to the Republicans?, sure, but in my opinion, most will admire the leadership of a no-nonsense progressive leader who looks to be at the very least sure of themselves and believe what they are saying.

For instance on the issue of public health care. Why not a candidate who forthrightly demands universal health care, one totally devoid of any insurance or drug company middle men. The Democratic leader should be freed from the shackles of having to appear rightwing and instead start engaging in educating the public about why its a good thing. Explaining the benefits, informing us that we are way behind the other western democracies in this. That we should be a rich enough country to supply this to its citizens. That it is actually cheaper. That we already have socialized institutions like Firefighters, Police, Schools, heck even the NFL!

The same is true on most 'liberal' proposals. As was mentioned most Americans ARE to the left in most of their thinking, they just have been brainwashed into thinking they are right of center. If a strong Democratic leader just sticks to his/her guns so to speak, and forcefully explains the reasoning, they will not only have their base come out in droves, they will also have most of the independent voters coming out for them as well.

[Adelante]

20. Very well done, Sparkly

Your rant speaks for me.

[crispini]

25. kick and recommended

:kick:

[Solon]

28. OK, I get it, don't hold politicians accountable if they are Democrats, they are above reproach...

etc., etc. bullshit. :eyes:

[Sparkly]

31. I hope you just forgot the sarcasm tag.

[Solon]

35. Why, you criticize both the direct approach to hold Democrats accountable...

or as you term it "harassing" them, and you then criticize the other approach, not voting for them. Basically what you are saying is that Democrats, just because they are Democrats, should be held unaccountable for their actions in office. This I cannot abide by, no way, no how, in a Democracy, when a politician of ANY party does something you don't agree with, you whine, bitch and moan, and, if need be, don't vote for them.

[Sparkly]

48. That's just bullshit.

I NEVER said Democrats should not be held accountable.

[Solon]

51. Not in so many words, you didn't, however, taken the totality of your OP, that's what you...

advocate for, you can't really deny that. Basically what you are asking for is, vote for Democrats no matter what, and hope of the best. To be frank, I don't have nearly as much faith in the Democratic party that you do, and you claim we are the idealists!

[Sparkly]

54. Of course I deny that. It's bullshit.

Who's "we" in "You claim we are the idealists?"

Did you really read my post?

[Solon]

63. Leftists of course, in addition, yes I read your post...

As you put it, "harassing" Democrats is a big no-no for you, and not voting for them is even worse, so what the fuck are we supposed to do when they fuck up? Bend over and take it?

[Sparkly]

67. Who made YOU the spokesperson for all "Leftists?"

Who made YOU the arbiter of the role of Ideals in Leftist views?

If harassing Democrats worked, we wouldn't have any problems now, would we? But suit yourself.

YES, not voting for them is even worse. Because Republicans are even worse.

"What the fuck are we supposed to do when they fuck up?" Whatever you want to. I think doing whatever's most effective would be a good idea.

[Lerkfish]

72. Apparently, you feel you've already filled that position.

aren't you trying to the spokesperson for all leftists in this thread?

:shrug:

man, I swear you keep piking my irony meter.

[Sparkly]

74. Not at ALL.

Where are you getting that?

[redqueen]

84. Well, you did call those you disagree with "self-proclaimed Lefties"

What does that seem to imply? Seems pretty plain to me.

[Sparkly]

86. I'm a self-proclaimed Lefty.

What does that pretty plainly imply to you? :shrug:

GEEEEZ....

[redqueen]

87. No, you said "from a Lefty"...

not "from one self-proclaimed Lefty to another"

BIG difference.

GEEEZ, indeed.

[Sparkly]

90. Oh, pardon me. I AM a "self-proclaimed lefty" though.

Am I pardoned? :eyes:

Some have really gone out of their way to insist I must NOT be a "true lefty" at all.

I frequently see people complain about being treated unfairly because they ARE "lefties," and they wear it like a fashion label while embracing people and ideas that don't seem "left" to me. That's true. Sue me.

[redqueen]

101. No need to get up on the cross.

Not with me.

There's a division in the party, I'm sorry that you feel singled-out by some of those who consider themselves to be further left from you. But in "reality" (heh heh) no one is spared, far-left, center-left, or otherwise. Each side has its members who blast their criticisms at full blast and in an ugly way. It's unfortunate, but that's life.

[Sparkly]

104. That's big of you.

I don't feel "singled-out by some of those who consider themselves to be further left from me." :rofl:

Yup, that's life.

[redqueen]

105. Well you just now complained about how often

people tell you you're not a lefty.

What's big of me?

You're obviously still sore about whatever it is, so I'll leave you to it.

Peace.

[Sparkly]

112. Sigh....

Why is this all about who is and who is not a Lefty?

You said I was claiming to be lefty while others are merely self-proclaimed.
I said I'm self-proclaimed; some accused ME of not being a real lefty, in fact.
Now you say I complained about people saying I'm not a lefty.

I'm not sore about anything. This is just plain dumb.

[redqueen]

114. Because of the thread title, and several statements in the OP.

I've given you examples.

[Solon]

73. I used Idealist in the pejorative sense...

as in unrealistic. In addition to this, you gave no ideas for what to do when Democrats fuck up, so how would YOU hold them accountable?

[Sparkly]

My post is not focused on "ideas for what to do when Democrats fuck up."

Start a new thread. It'd be a good discussion.

As I said, many many times, in my view the #1 thing to do is to persuade people, at the grassroots level, and make a more resonant chorus of such voices heard.

Challenge them in the primaries -- no question. Write letters. Organize campaigns. Do whatever works. And for God sakes, when the time comes, fight the REPUBLICANS.

That's what I think. What do you think works?

[Solon]

125. Depends on the politician...

I guess that would be the most honest answer. Some respond to letter writing campaigns, petitions, etc. as the most effective way to reach them, primary challenges are of, generally, limited effectiveness, there is the incumbency problem with makes it much more difficult for "new blood" to enter politics, whether from within or outside of a political party. In addition, grassroots efforts, to my mind, are of limited effectiveness unless they are focused on one or two issues, such as being pro-peace, pro-fair trade, etc. Most people within said groups are excellent at organizing at the local level for events, brainstorming, and even campaigning for specific candidates, but generally don't mesh well with party apparatuses simply because of the partisan nature of such organizations.

The fact is that if we were to create a "leftist coalition", even within the Democratic party, it would be of limited size, by default, simply because trying to convince people to join would be hard. The best people to get would be those who are of the almost 50% of the voting age public who don't vote. The problem is creating a partisan group for this purpose limits the amount of people who will join because, sad to say, most of the non-voting public have little faith in either party. To be frank, they are more cynical than I am, which is a rather difficult feat to achieve, because my cynicism is damned near legendary to people who know me.

But that is neither here nor there, to be frank, I would just give up on politics entirely if I didn't care so much, but the lack of options is frustrating, so I need to vent. The fact of the matter is that I have precisely ONE Democrat who represents me in Congress, and to be frank, she sucks. In fact, she has precisely two major redeeming characteristics that differentiates her from the Repukes, Stem Cell Research and Choice, though even on Choice she wavers.

The fact of the matter is that, whoever we vote in for President in 2008, in 2009, if they do NOT at least begin to initiate a plan to remove our troops from Iraq in a timely manner, by timely I mean in months, not years, then I will march my ass halfway across the country and park it straight on the White House lawn until those troops come home. I may fire off a letter or two as well. To be honest, I'm enough of a cynic to realize this may be necessary regardless of whether we elect a Democrat or not.

[Lerkfish]

56. I certainly see a lot threads telling us to shut up and vote for democrats that are against

our interests.

I think this is the eventual problem with an exclusively two-party system. We have not always had just two parties. There were Whigs, Populists, etc. and the support for the candidate used to mean support for the platform.

Now, it becomes this abstract "party loyalty" question instead of a platform question. I'm sorry it ever turned into that, because as we see, if BOTH parties are pro-war, our choice is a measly excercise to determine who's slightly LESS war-like than the other. We SHOULD be able to have people vote AGAINST the war instead of settling for the lesser of two evils.

[Sparkly]

59. Nobody's telling you to "shut up and vote for Democrats."

Good grief.

It IS a "platform question." It's NOT a "party loyalty question." The fact is, there are significant differences in the platforms of the two parties!

We "SHOULD, should should should" -- maybe so. SO?

[Lerkfish]

70. I wasn't referring to this thread, but discussing it generally, but

yes indeed there have been many threads here telling us that we must vote for democrats, any democrat and ignore our core issues.

I could lie to you and say that was not so, but I'm not so good at lying.

:shrug:

[Sparkly]

79. They said you "must?"

Wow. Did you ask how they were gonna make you?

[D23MIURG23]

324. No you ruled it out indirectly instead.

[Sparkly]

335. Please explain. nt

[D23MIURG23]

391. Your method of ruling out accountability for the democrats:

Throughout your piece you speak about the behaviors that irk you about your fellow "self proclaimed leftists". This list contains every example of something I would consider a manner of holding someone accountable. I will first summarize each instance of this, and its location in your peice, and then analyze in the end.

Section 3, "Reality is important even if it sucks"

Here you state that leftists are electorally impotent and incapable of mounting violent resistance. You quickly rule out the use of violent revolution (I'm not going to fault you for that - I'm not quite despearate enough to start spraying lead at anyone) but also state that we shouldn't expect any meaningful change anytime soon. Thats because "Realistically, a quick, thorough, radical leftward shift, through political and nonviolent means, is just not going to happen. Sorry!".

Section 4, "Power is built upward"

Here you state that change cannot be accomplished by looking anywhere outside the Democratic party. You state that the only means of Changing anything is to bring more people into the base of the democratic party through grassroots action. I interepereted you comment about power not being in decibals as ruling out protest and demonstration as a tool for accountability.

Section 5, "Not voting for democrats is a luxury others cannot afford"

You strengthen your case against any electoral action other than voting for Democrats.

Section 7, "I am voting for the Democratic Nominee no matter who it is"

You restate that only by voting for Democrats can any change come to our "slow, rusty, political machinary".

Let me first state that I don't care about any of the definitions that you've spelled out throughout your post. I am a self-proclamed utilitarian pragmatist, so I don't care to debate the nature of leftism because I have a limited sense of what any ideology is worth. What I do care about is the fact that last election a huge number of people followed your advice and did vote for Democrats, sweeping them into power in both houses of congress (with benedict lieberman as official caveat in the senate) on a tidal wave of outrage at the war and the way W has manhandled our government.

The Democrats have shown that they know the public will. They have shown this with their non-binding Iraq resolutions, and their investigations into the malevolent workings of the * admin. They stop well short of pursuing these issues to the best of their ability however. True leftists may be a minority in the US, however those 60%+ of us who think that the Iraq war is a disaster and that W is shitting on our country are not. So the real question is how to make the democrats serve the political will of those who already elected them, and your suggestion is vote for more democrats (possibly even those saber rattling at Iran) and hope?

If you have another strategy for holding them accountable perhaps you can elaborate?

[Sparkly]

392. Response

Thanks for your post.

#3. First, I was talking about major, radical shifts -- toward abolishing capitalism and class structures, for example. I used the words "Quick, thorough, radical." Not going to happen. Do you disagree?

#4. I absolutely did not mean to rule out protest and demonstration. I'm speaking against a tendency to think change happens from relatively few people trying to get attention from the leaders at the very very top of government. I see it like a ladder: It doesn't work well to be at the bottom of ladder, trying to get loud enough to move the people at the top of it. Climb up to the second rung and get the people there to get with you and go up to the third rung... Maybe not a perfect metaphor or image, but it's something like that.

#5. Good -- I did intend to make a case for voting for Democrats.

#7. Yes -- I believe voting for Democrats is the way to go.

As for "holding them accountable" -- They can certainly be voted out of office, but in favor of ANOTHER DEMOCRAT beating them out in a primary, NOT in favor of a REPUBLICAN. In addition, my view of expanding a constituency who believes as you do involves the power of numbers, in things as simple as letter-writing campaigns (to politicians and media both), to protests, to forming other organizations (NOW, Sierra, MoveOn, etc.) with visible presence -- essentially becoming a "lobbying group." That's pressure.

"Voting for more Democrats" -- absolutely. Different Democrats, even! But THEIR power is also in their numbers in government, where the deals are made. I think our power is best exerted in our own spheres, and then working collectively from there as a broad constituency. That also, by the way, takes TOLERANCE of variations in views, to take a steps toward any one common goal.

Does that clarify?

[Cameron27]

39. Someone said eloquent, and I agree.

edited just to say a wonderful rant.
K&R

[PATRICK]

41. Go atypical

and flexible and see beyond the scripted drama of the system. Get ALL the Dems elected, just back progressives and cultivate more genuine agents along the way. The DLC will bust a gut with so much real progressive power burning hi-test in their old classic parity machine. The real struggle no matter WHO is elected, even DK, remains with broader change than too much of the party leadership is capable of in this generation. So don't lock them into a New York Legislature see-saw misery, responsibility avoidance machine that allows the GOP crime families to survive. Crush them and move over their graves to plant more progressive roots. Either the party will burst into a REAL Conservative Moderate versus progressive Liberal duality with genuine choices minus the crime or the old generation, incapable of ever reaching the Promised Land, will fade. A party is only its members, what beliefs they act upon and whose interests they serve.

The people should decide of voting straight dem for one simple undemocratic fact. We have no other viable public servants running in competition except the odd Green party candidate. First we take down the corporate thugs and the cultists and then we build better choices, real choices in real elections. It is not about the lesser of two evils. There is one evil striving to cheat against the people's interest being imperfectly represented by public servants we intend to improve upon no matter WHAT they accomplish once in power themselves. Improve upon, not mindlessly, self-righteously take down so that tyranny can reoccur.

Left means moving left, becoming the hopeful tide, not retreating to the tower. Staticity is the noble Conservative, uninvolved, despairing, self approving and powerless to help the people. The RW flows madly against the tide of any history where humans can flourish or even survive. That is the reason why only death and Armageddon cults can make their followers crazy enough to attain the proper level of hatred and insanity to keep jerks in power. Can't escape reality and can't escape the alternative being completely destructive evil. Liberal issues are not about adjusting the social environment for improved rights but a live and death struggle against would be slave masters. Classic, not cerebral, not relegated to any group of elites. Right means moving backward toward a grave. Graves come guaranteed, hopes do not. The left is thus braver, more flexible and has a future.

The question I have, who would have liked to consider myself by nature a passionate moderate- but cannot in this life or death situation for humanity- is whether there is actually really a "left" in this country and certainly not in the stronger European sense or self-evident Latin American economic divide. It is a weak notion succumbed already to a limited Revolution that never faces its flaws or contradictions. Our model is so far from the shirtless ones or the faithful masses of India that the main way to shake off the silk covered chains slipping over us is to run straight up the middle and fill the system with the just until it bursts out into a democracy such as this land never saw before. Up the middle and left to the future.

[Hydra]

44. Some criticisms for you

1 and 2 I agree with.

3. Reality is Important (even if it sucks).

Yes, reality is important, and it frequently DOES suck. You're ignoring that Bushco has been working within the same system we're using, and making major(you might say catastrophic) gains while doing so. Mind you, most of what he's doing is in the dark, but he's managed to get everything he's done so far make retroactively legal.

Given that fact, the myth that change in our gov't is glacial is absurd. Change can come as fast as everyone is willing to handle, and given that condition, the fact that we are still drifting right(or flying, depending on your perspective) while we hold the legislative branch does not add up, no matter how much calculating one cares to do.

4. Power is built upward

Yes, it is, but opportunity comes downward. We're not going to change the minds of most RW wingnuts until they can see how much better things are for them when our ideas are in play.

I speak from experience in this matter, as I take time to explain govt', monetary systems and other base issues to people. Until another way is shown to work, most people would rather keep what they have, no matter how bad it is.

5. Not voting for Democrats is a luxury I can afford, but others cannot.

Fair enough. Are you going to apologize to people who are hurt by your acceptance of "the lesser of two evils"? Of course not. In your mind, there is not a better way, so you are not responsible. That's called powerlessness.

More than one person has pointed out that if all of us who stuck with our values and voted for someone who represented those values, that we would more than likely win. The DLCers claim that it's only with their support that we win elections. If it is the case that we are truly outnumbered, we may as well leave now.

I'll vote Dem in 2008, if only to give you what you truly want- proof that we are no longer represented at all.

6. You are not being persecuted for being “left.”

I don't know what planet you're living on, but "left" is a bad word now. Left stands for "idealist" and "deluded" and "dangerous" in most people's minds. "Left" will lead us to doom, while promising paradise(which is a good description of what the right is doing, so you have to wonder where they got that idea).

"Left" speaks "lies"(which are proven but unpopular), they "don't care about the economy and the workforce"(which is currently being destroyed by debt based slavery and outsourcing), and they champion "uneconomical technologies"(clean energy that doesn't benefit Exxon and others) and worst of all, "they are soft on terror and place America in danger!"(While we illegally invade countries and piss off Putin, who's using our blatant imperialism as an excuse to rebuild the USSR)

We are NOT loonies. The people who use that term are the ones missing a few screws.

7. I am voting for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is.

I covered that earlier. I will add that values are NOT idealism. Idealism is a way of forming goals, values are what define you as a person.

"An inch. It's small and it's fragile and it's the only thing in the world worth having. We must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away. We must never let them take it from us."

V for Vendetta

[Sparkly]

52. Response

"Change can come as fast as everyone is willing to handle" -- right. And how fast is "everyone willing to handle" right now? And what can be done about that -- what works, what doesn't?

#4 - Are you saying the changes (whatever they may be) need to be made first, then people will get on board with them? So how does one make changes people are NOT on board with? Who decides? Who makes the changes? Why do they make them?

#5 - Unless you're of the mind that the two major parties are identical, we're not "powerless," and a vote for a Democrat is not wasted. It is a vote AGAINST a Republican.

#6 - I have almost NEVER seen "left," in the sense of political views, denigrated on DU. They are hardly even discussed. I see "left" as a fashion label, and the term is starting to represent a range of feelings and behaviors that are often frankly, well -- less than helpful. THAT gives "left" a bad name.

#7 -- Idealism and Reality are NOT mutually exclusive. Being clear about them is critical. It is indeed only an inch -- not a revolution -- but every one of those inches MATTERS. It's the inch of a small paragraph in a piece of legislation that can affect thousands upon thousands of lives. Idealism, in my view, should give those value, NOT diminish the millions of items of legislation we can't get to pass.

[zeemike]

50. I hear ya Sparkly

And largely your observations are correct from where I stand.
But we can dream can’t we?
And I don’t think it is a bad thing to dream of a time where people suddenly exchange there hearts of stone for a heart of flesh It could happen, but I would not what to speculate on just how that would come about, but rather give you some practical solutions to our common problems which is what I think you are asking for.

Support your friends even if you don’t agree with every point.
The Atheist on the left should work with the Christian left for the sake of the common goal.

Do not let people label you in any way.
And be assertive if someone tries to label you…get in there face if necessary, but do not let them win that one.

Do not fall in love with the candidates
Remember that all they are are images on a screen and that it is their actions that matter, not there image.

And lastly turn off the TV and get off your ass.
Do something positive even if it only posting on DU to make this a better world.

[Sparkly]

58. Of course we can dream...

My dream is a socialist one. But I know the difference between that ideal vision and the limitations of reality. I know a step in the right direction, however small, matters.

I wasn't asking for anything, but I do like your points. :hi:

[zeemike]

65. What if you could have the best of Socialism

And the best of capitalism and even the best of Fascism if there is such a thing.
Would you be Happy with that compromise or would you hate it?

[Sparkly]

68. I don't see how that would work. nt

[Neshanic]

57. "I am voting for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is." Exhibit A"

For the reason you are hardly far left.

Todays far left does not vote for the Democrat served up. The fact that you will only makes one wonder if you are African American, or gay, two groups that are always counted on voting Democratic no matter what.

You would not be a far left, center left, or left by the standards of the sixties, but in these strange times, your call to basically work within the system makes you just like the rest of us. Democrats held hostage by a complete and utter lack of leadership in any way by our party. I plan to work and vote for Hillary, our pre-chosen, sanitized for corporate consumption, handled and groomed for scared fence sitting republicans candidate. Do I have a choice? Do you? Last time I checked two states completely removed from reality as far as issues concerning the bigger states will have selected our candidate for us.

Working within the system is hardly leftist, but how you work within that system can brand you a leftist. We currently have no "left" people in our Democratic organization in Washington, only Nelson Rockefeller wanna-bes that walk on rice paper so lightly as to make sure they get the all important republican vote.

Your points are valid as far as what needs to be accomplished is concerned, but if you are a lefty, then you would fit in right at home at a Paradise Valley Democratic party meeting.

[Sparkly]

64. "you are hardly far left."

What a crock of crap.

"Todays far left does not vote for the Democrat served up." Says WHO????

[Lerkfish]

75. again, you are outraged at ANYONE ELSE besides yourself defining what is left.

its a definition thread, obviously and clearly. And you think yourself the sole arbiter of the definition.

:shrug:

[Sparkly]

85. I believe, Lerkfish, that you are projecting.

Rather than discuss the substance of my post, you immediately posted with apparent offense that somebody might be taking the term "LEFT" away from you somehow. You want it to mean what you want it to mean. Maybe to some people, it does; maybe to other people, it doesn't.

You're free to tell me what YOU think it means. You haven't, though.

What in my #1 do you disagree with? If you've actually made a point about that, I guess it went "50 miles over my head."

[Lerkfish]

133. actually, my first post was to point out we disagree on defintions.

that goes to the substance of your post.

I'm not the one projecting here.

:shrug:

[Sparkly]

148. What's your definition? nt

[Lerkfish]

172. LOL! NOW you ask me what my definition is?

ok. I'll use some of your structure in the OP

First, three disclaimers:

- I am about as left as they come. On those political compass charts, I’m –8.5 on both dimensions. I’m a socialist at heart, and consider it neither a bragging point nor a flaw -- just a neutral fact.
an unprovable "fact" from my end. I"m just supposed to accept that you're as left as they come. you may be, I have no way to prove or disprove that

- Please don’t pretend this post is about free speech. It should go without saying that you’re free to post whatever you like within DU’s rules (as am I).
agreed. And I did. I respectfully posted that I disagreed.

- It’s a rant. Sorry if it hurts the tender feelings of people who claim to be steeled for a revolution.
statements like this, and the title of your rant, go against your claim to be neutral or the furthest left person we could imagine. It's highly dismissive and judgemental. It presumes that no one in a group that you define can have legitimate disagreement with your post unless they have "tender feelings".


1. What “Left” Is: It’s a pretty broad term, so it’s always debatable (though rarely, if ever, debated here). But by any definition, we’re talking about political philosophy. We’re talking about the role of government; empowerment of people who are oppressed or exploited, especially by capitalism; the problems of class systems, etc. What we are NOT talking about is level of emotion about any particular issue or strong outspokenness about any particular issue. Vehement heartfelt hand-wringing angst about the war may come from a Lefty, but it’s not an automatic correlation. That distinction is rarely made here. Thus conservative and moderate politicians who speak in strong opposition to the US involvement in Iraq are sometimes embraced as “left,” while liberals whose political actions are measured are lambasted for being “right.”
"vehement heartfelt hand-wringing angst" is not a neutral characterization. it, again, is dismissive and judgmental. You characterize people against war as unreasonable hand-wringers, while "liberals whose political actions are MEASURED are LAMBASTED for being "right". you complain about labeling right after you label. And you dismissively label anti-war attitudes and praise the counter attitudes as "measured'. This polarized rhetoric does not convince me you are further left than say, well myself.

2. “Left” and “Anti-war” are not strictly synonymous. There are conservatives, too, who are against the occupation in Iraq; and socialism, for example, can see militant revolution as progressive. (To the extent that pockets of the civil war in Iraq might involve struggle for power by a lower class, for example, some lefties might not disapprove; but the US involvement in this struggle is still, of course, folly at best.) The most direct means of changing power and moving a country left is, of course, militant uprising. Which leads to #3. You've just claimed that being pro war or anti war is politically independent, in other word, conservatives can be against war IN THIS INSTANCE and you explain the parameters of how THIS war can be objected to because its not a good war. But this overlooks that a leftist can be against ALL WAR, as am I. You seem to only think war can be objected to if there are enough "negatives" in the strategy. We disagree that that can be a left position. In fact I must fundamentally disagree with that.

3. Reality is Important (even if it sucks). Are you prepared for a revolution against the U.S. war machine? No? Then is there any other alternative besides accepting the limitations of the democracy we have and working for change within this structure, by peaceful means? If there is, I’d like to know. Otherwise, what are people expecting? To me, it seems there’s a lack of clarity that has people banging their heads against a wall, running around in circles, and then complaining that it hurts and nothing is getting accomplished. Well yeah, for a small minority of people to make huge changes in a democratic, capitalist system is a pretty tall order. Realistically, a quick, thorough, radical leftward shift, through political and nonviolent means, is just not going to happen. Sorry! When it gets right down to it, our loudest voice is our vote. (And we all know the problems with that.) Not sure why the hyperbole of "are you prepare dofr a revolution" has anything to do with being left. That's a strategic question. Any strategy can be used by anyone even with different objectives. The objective is the difference. And, further, you again use dismissive rhetoric "running around in circles" etc. for being anti-war. I again fail to see how that puts you as far left as they come. Your rhetoric betrays you, is what I'm trying to tell you.

4. Power is built upward. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: You can’t “move left” either a country or a party by whining, shouting in congressional meetings, harassing Democrats, lauding people like Ralph Nader, or voting for third-party candidates who are destined to lose. It’s not nearly as emotionally cathartic or exciting, but the most effective thing we can do is to try to convince others of our views, and increase the size of this minority at the grassroots. There is power in ideas, in persuasion, and ultimately in numbers, but not in decibels. "whining" for left, again. "harrassing", "not in decibels". You are again framing the antiwar movement as marginalized, unimportant, ineffecual and pointless. how are more left than me, again?

5. Not voting for Democrats is a luxury I can afford, but others cannot. Sure, I personally think I can survive if Republicans rule for the rest of my lifetime. If it gets untenable, I can even move to another country. But there are others who literally will not survive, both here and around the world. Do you really care about the social good? Contrary to the stated opinions of some here, the occupation in Iraq is not the only important issue at stake. There certainly are issues that impact the very foundations of our country, the very structures of our society, and the very survival of many, many people. (And there are certainly significant differences between the two parties.) So the claims of ideals and “conscience” in shunning Democrats ring very hollow to my ears. The assumption here is that social good is better served by ignoring the occupation in iraq. We disagree. I'm further confused how calling the war unimportant is the moral high ground on "conscience"

6. You are not being persecuted for being “left.” Despite the all-too-common proud self-pity on that theme, I’ve rarely seen the term “lefty loonies” used to criticize the political views of being “lefty;” it’s generally more about being “loony.” And as a “lefty” myself, I’d appreciate unlinking the unfortunate correlation between “left” and “loony,” on all sides. Self-proclaimed leftists, please look closer at criticisms and see if they’re really about your leftist views (if any), or whether they may have more to do with perceptions that you are being unrealistic, obnoxious, and/or unhelpful to the progress that nearly ALL here at DU want. And to those who do disparage “lefty loonies,” please also separate behaviors, emotions, and methodology from actual leftist political views. Not all leftists are loony; not all loony people are leftist. again, shaming derogatory rhetoric about being left -- "unrealistic, obnoxious, proud self-pity, "looney", etc. you're trying to saying that instead of people calling you"looney left" because your'e left is wrong, its just because you're looney. Um, ok, that's again your rhetoric revealing more about your point of view than you intend. And you don't see why I think its IRONIC that your rant is telling people how they are "self-proclaimed leftists"? nothing you've revealed is truly a left position.

7. I am voting for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is. I have never voted for anybody but Democrats in my entire life. It is still the one best tool we have, in our system as it is, for having any real impact on government. It won’t get the country where I personally would like it to be, but that is just not going to happen in any case. We will continue to have a capitalist class system, corruption, corporatism, and slow, rusty political machinery. There will still be injustice, outrageous recklessness, discrimination and crazy rightwingers. The reality is, we cannot make all that go away. We can only keep pushing the boulder of progress slowly and deliberately uphill, with determination and resignation against the gravity of reality, if only at times to keep it from sliding downward any further. This is hardly a ringing endorsement for your position: its all pointless so you might as well vote for anyone with a D beside their name instead of supporting someone who might NOT be part of the problem. Its shooting for mediocrity and calling it victory.

Idealism is wonderful, unless it actually impedes real progress. Reality bites. It’s not nearly as emotionally rewarding as idealism, either, but it’s trump. That’s why, while my views may match a third party candidate, this Lefty will always vote for Democrats. Always, and without apology. here you admit you would sacrifice your principles to perpetuate the party, even if it drifts from your principles. We will have to disagree that is always the best solution to the problem. In my mind, that only REWARDS your representatives for not representing you, and if you continue to do that you end up with the government you deserve.


thanks for asking how I disagreed with you.

have a nice day!

[Sparkly]

179. As I did in post #43....

You obviously don't need to believe me, approve of my language or rhetoric, or agree with me. Perhaps I sounded dismissive and judgmental to you; that's fine, I can accept that. You don't like it when I'm critical of some of the people who identify as "left" -- and no question, my post IS critical of some people who call themselves "left." (I'm not saying they ARE necessarily "left" because it's not clear to me that they relate the term to a political philosophy, but perhaps rather a set of behaviors, feelings, and methods.)

You do, however, read things in that I simply did not say, drawing conclusions that I obviously did not make.

But since you said it's about definitions of "left," I'll focus on the few times you addressed that.

#2:But this overlooks that a leftist can be against ALL WAR, as am I. You seem to only think war can be objected to if there are enough "negatives" in the strategy. We disagree that that can be a left position. In fact I must fundamentally disagree with that.

It is debatable whether pacifism and leftism always (or even ever) go together. I didn't say anything about "negatives in the strategy;" again, I said that revolution, as civil war when an underclass uprises, is not necessarily something all leftists would disapprove of.

#3: Not sure why the hyperbole of "are you prepare dofr a revolution" has anything to do with being left. That's a strategic question. Any strategy can be used by anyone even with different objectives. The objective is the difference.

Yes, objective and strategy are indeed two different things. That was very much the point of my post, in a different sense than you mean it here. Revolution, as I said, is the ONE effective means of shifting a nation to the left. The structure we have, short of revolution, is a slower one; and I don't believe we will see America give up capitalism, ever. Do you disagree?

Your other points have nothing to do with definitions of "left," that I can see, but I'll try to respond more later. :hi:

[Lerkfish]

182. ah, sorry. I missed your post #43, with this convoluted thread structure

as you can see, I hadn't responded to it previously.

I did not ONLY have problems with your definitions, but I was pointing out that we disagreed on definition.

and dissmissive rhetoric IS important if you are trying to persuade the very people you are being dismissive of. you should not be overly surprised when that does not work.

[Lerkfish]

249. I would point out you've never come back to finish this

but you've had plenty of opportunities to reply to me on other posts.

While I appreciate THIS post, as far as it goes, I can only feel like when I provide my arguments to your OP, you aren't as interested in that level of discourse.

:shrug:

[Sparkly]

256. Okay, hang on...

[Elspeth]

188. Lerkfish, a good set of points. I hope it gets read.

Your finer points may be too fine for some eyes, though. :)

[Lerkfish]

193. thanks. I also hope it gets read.

and I fear some will not understand it as I mean it.

[Neshanic]

223. Very eloquent and excellent set of points. One of the best responses I have read in a long time.

[Sparkly]

260. To pick up again

By request. ;)

On my being "Lefty," you said: an unprovable "fact" from my end. I"m just supposed to accept that you're as left as they come. you may be, I have no way to prove or disprove that True. That's the nature of message boards. Don't know what else to tell ya.

On not making it about free speech, you said: agreed. And I did. I respectfully posted that I disagreed. Okay. I thought you made some cryptic remarks about being outside the room, and that I was trying to make definitions, and that I didn't understand simple arguments and stuff like that, but fine.

I said: It’s a rant. Sorry if it hurts the tender feelings of people who claim to be steeled for a revolution.
You said:
statements like this, and the title of your rant, go against your claim to be neutral or the furthest left person we could imagine. It's highly dismissive and judgemental. It presumes that no one in a group that you define can have legitimate disagreement with your post unless they have "tender feelings".

I didn't mean to say that at all. Yes, it's snarky -- maybe "dismissive and judgmental" -- not of Leftists, but of poseurs who ready up for a real fight against the establishment in one thread, and cry that they're poor persecuted "lefties" in the next. One minute it's impenetrable armor against the right, and the next the shell is so thin it can't take impoliteness. So yeah, maybe that wasn't nice of me, but I was kind of saying too that I wasn't going to be mincing words, so sorry in advance if some pseudo-revolutionaries need to reach for their smelling salts.

(I know, I'm doing it again. Sorry.)

One more for now -- I said:
1. What “Left” Is: It’s a pretty broad term, so it’s always debatable (though rarely, if ever, debated here). But by any definition, we’re talking about political philosophy. We’re talking about the role of government; empowerment of people who are oppressed or exploited, especially by capitalism; the problems of class systems, etc. What we are NOT talking about is level of emotion about any particular issue or strong outspokenness about any particular issue. Vehement heartfelt hand-wringing angst about the war may come from a Lefty, but it’s not an automatic correlation. That distinction is rarely made here. Thus conservative and moderate politicians who speak in strong opposition to the US involvement in Iraq are sometimes embraced as “left,” while liberals whose political actions are measured are lambasted for being “right.”

You said:
"vehement heartfelt hand-wringing angst" is not a neutral characterization. it, again, is dismissive and judgmental. You characterize people against war as unreasonable hand-wringers, while "liberals whose political actions are MEASURED are LAMBASTED for being "right". you complain about labeling right after you label. And you dismissively label anti-war attitudes and praise the counter attitudes as "measured'. This polarized rhetoric does not convince me you are further left than say, well myself.

See, I'm making fun of "vehement heartfelt hand-wringing angst" as a substitute for actual political beliefs -- indeed, as something I think some people indulge in, so it seems to me. I think some actually enjoy a certain persecution complex about being "Left." (And I don't think it's about being "Left.") I'm separating levels of emotion and behaviors from political belief. I did NOT "characterize people against war as unreasonable hand-wringers!"

And yes, I think some people who identify as "left" embrace moderates or even conservatives -- "He spoke out! He's left!" and then attack liberals -- "He didn't end the war! He's rightwing!" I think they're equating outspokenness, or short-term actions, with political position, even political positions on record over long periods of time. I mentioned the dichotomy of conservatives who "speak in strong opposition" to the war and are "embraced"; should I have praised these conservatives more or been harder on them? I mentioned liberals who did something else, "measured," and were "lambasted" -- should I have been nicer to those liberals or harder on them? I really don't get the point here, and don't see how it's polarizing.

I have to get somewhere, maybe I'll pick up later.

[Sparkly]

307. Picking it up again

I think I already addressed your #2 and #3.

I wrote:
4. Power is built upward. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: You can’t “move left” either a country or a party by whining, shouting in congressional meetings, harassing Democrats, lauding people like Ralph Nader, or voting for third-party candidates who are destined to lose. It’s not nearly as emotionally cathartic or exciting, but the most effective thing we can do is to try to convince others of our views, and increase the size of this minority at the grassroots. There is power in ideas, in persuasion, and ultimately in numbers, but not in decibels.

You wrote: "whining" for left, again. "harrassing", "not in decibels". You are again framing the antiwar movement as marginalized, unimportant, ineffecual and pointless. how are more left than me, again?

First of all, who's talking about "the antiwar movement?" Is that what you think "the LEFT" is now, "the antiwar movement?" Then there IS a breakdown in definitions at work here. They may overlap, but they're not synonymous by any means.

I didn't say all leftists whine, harass, or have an issue with decibels. I said it's NOT EFFECTIVE to whine, harass, or have an issue with decibels. It is, in my view, not the way to "move things left." And it's not necessarily what leftists do. (Do YOU think all leftists whine, harass, and and have decibel issues? Just the ones you know, maybe?) :shrug:

I wrote:
5. Not voting for Democrats is a luxury I can afford, but others cannot. Sure, I personally think I can survive if Republicans rule for the rest of my lifetime. If it gets untenable, I can even move to another country. But there are others who literally will not survive, both here and around the world. Do you really care about the social good? Contrary to the stated opinions of some here, the occupation in Iraq is not the only important issue at stake. There certainly are issues that impact the very foundations of our country, the very structures of our society, and the very survival of many, many people. (And there are certainly significant differences between the two parties.) So the claims of ideals and “conscience” in shunning Democrats ring very hollow to my ears.

You wrote: The assumption here is that social good is better served by ignoring the occupation in iraq. We disagree. I'm further confused how calling the war unimportant is the moral high ground on "conscience"

That's just ridiculous. I made no such assumption, and implied no such thing! Nor did I "call the war unimportant." You seem to be trying hard to spin what I actually wrote.

[Sparkly]

316. Last Ones

I wrote:
6. You are not being persecuted for being “left.” Despite the all-too-common proud self-pity on that theme, I’ve rarely seen the term “lefty loonies” used to criticize the political views of being “lefty;” it’s generally more about being “loony.” And as a “lefty” myself, I’d appreciate unlinking the unfortunate correlation between “left” and “loony,” on all sides. Self-proclaimed leftists, please look closer at criticisms and see if they’re really about your leftist views (if any), or whether they may have more to do with perceptions that you are being unrealistic, obnoxious, and/or unhelpful to the progress that nearly ALL here at DU want. And to those who do disparage “lefty loonies,” please also separate behaviors, emotions, and methodology from actual leftist political views. Not all leftists are loony; not all loony people are leftist.

You wrote:
again, shaming derogatory rhetoric about being left -- "unrealistic, obnoxious, proud self-pity, "looney", etc. you're trying to saying that instead of people calling you"looney left" because your'e left is wrong, its just because you're looney. Um, ok, that's again your rhetoric revealing more about your point of view than you intend. And you don't see why I think its IRONIC that your rant is telling people how they are "self-proclaimed leftists"? nothing you've revealed is truly a left position.

Again, it's not about "being left!" It's about being unrealistic, obnoxious, self-pitiful, and perhaps "loony." That is NOT the same thing as being left!! (Not to me it isn't, anyway.) And yes, I think some people are criticized for their behaviors, NOT for their political philosophy (which is rarely even discussed). It's NOT about "being left."

Nothing you've revealed is "truly a left position," either. :shrug: No surprise -- it seems to me the people who make the most claims to "leftism" are the ones who never discuss what that means as a PHILOSOPHY; as IDEAS; as IDEALS; as structures and systems and economics, as means of justice and equality. What IS your definition of "leftist," exactly??

I wrote:
7. I am voting for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is. I have never voted for anybody but Democrats in my entire life. It is still the one best tool we have, in our system as it is, for having any real impact on government. It won’t get the country where I personally would like it to be, but that is just not going to happen in any case. We will continue to have a capitalist class system, corruption, corporatism, and slow, rusty political machinery. There will still be injustice, outrageous recklessness, discrimination and crazy rightwingers. The reality is, we cannot make all that go away. We can only keep pushing the boulder of progress slowly and deliberately uphill, with determination and resignation against the gravity of reality, if only at times to keep it from sliding downward any further.

You wrote:
This is hardly a ringing endorsement for your position: its all pointless so you might as well vote for anyone with a D beside their name instead of supporting someone who might NOT be part of the problem. Its shooting for mediocrity and calling it victory.

There IS no "ringing endorsement." But the point is, it is NOT "all pointless." I think I stated why I believe that, and why I choose to vote for Democrats. Better "mediocrity" than unmitigated disaster. (Not that I consider all Democrats mediocre.)

I wrote:
Idealism is wonderful, unless it actually impedes real progress. Reality bites. It’s not nearly as emotionally rewarding as idealism, either, but it’s trump. That’s why, while my views may match a third party candidate, this Lefty will always vote for Democrats. Always, and without apology.

here you admit you would sacrifice your principles to perpetuate the party, even if it drifts from your principles. We will have to disagree that is always the best solution to the problem. In my mind, that only REWARDS your representatives for not representing you, and if you continue to do that you end up with the government you deserve.

Maybe you're having trouble following my argument. The whole point is that it is NOT "sacrificing principles" to me. Holding principles is one thing; choices of what to DO with them are another. "Perpetuate the party?" I've just never heard that phrase before! Yes, I think the party will be perpetuated for a long time to come.

So how do YOU get the government YOU deserve? How's it working?

[Lerkfish]

393. was away from a computer for the weekend, so just geting back to this.

I appreciate your responses. I respectfully disagree with them, and I think we'll have to leave it there. I put out my points and you rebutted them. It still comes down to our indvidual, and DIFFERENT perspectives on the situation.

thanks again!

[tomp]

372. now we're getting somewhere. nt

[midlife_mo_Jo]

135. Once a democrat gets the nomination - I'm voting democrat

Just maybe not as large as we could have with another candidate.

[redqueen]

66. One side calls the other 'loony'...

the other side calls them 'moderate' in a time when (at least this group perceives that) the definition of 'centrist' is way off.


Telling the other side that they must come around to your point of view, that they are 'loony', and they are the ones hurting the party is... helpful, do you think?

It's one thing to go off like that when you're upset... but your OP was carefully thought out and well put together.

[Sparkly]

89. I didn't tell anybody they were "loony," did I?

I think the term "loony left" is generally used on DU NOT to attack leftist positions, though, but rather the behavior of people who claim them. That was my point about that term.

[redqueen]

97. Divisive language hurts your argument.

"all-too-common proud self-pity"


"Self-proclaimed leftists, please look closer at criticisms and see if they’re really about your leftist views (if any),"


I see that you did make some effort to be fair about it, at the end of that blurb... but does it really balance? In my view, no.


And even if you disagree with someone's behavior, that doesn't give you any reasonable expectation that they should, after reading your post, suddenly agree with you that the things that to them are reasonable, are actually, as you assert, "loony". Calling someone names doesn't seem to be a very good way to go about trying to bring them around to your way of seeing things.

[Sparkly]

100. It's a rant.

Yes, I've seen this criticism many times before. That is why I included this disclaimer:

- It’s a rant. Sorry if it hurts the tender feelings of people who claim to be steeled for a revolution.

(But no, I did not call anyone "loony.")

[redqueen]

103. No, you didn't...

And yeah, I read that it's a rant... but a very well-thought out and carefully constructed one... so not one made in the heat of passion.

So... all those little bits of nastiness (nice example there, "tender feelings of people who claim...") a little less easily defended.

[Sparkly]

106. Huh?

Nastiness in heat of passion is acceptable nastiness but nastiness is more nasty if it seems less heated?

Sorry. :shrug:

[redqueen]

108. It's a very common idea.

For example: crimes committed in the heat of passion are usually given lighter sentences (extenuating circumstances).

Not that you committed a crime, of course... but being rude and making put-downs when you're all pissed off is one thing. Being nasty and rude when you're calm is another.

[Sparkly]

113. Well, hopefully people can handle it. nt

[redqueen]

116. Of course...

:hi:

[IndianaJones]

69. I am a moderate and find this to be a very good post. nt.

[Lerkfish]

77. Exactly. As I said in another post, moderates would agree with this definition easily.

leftists not so much.

[cali]

88. This leftist who's marched for years and years with

Bread & Puppet, who was arrested at Seabrook, who's gone to Washington to protest 3x since 2002, who's been a member of a P%J group for years, who organized the opposition to Gulf war I in the community, also largely agrees with the OP.

YOU have no right to tell me who I am or how I should self-identify.

No right to do that whatsoever. That's exclusionary bullshit.

And your contempt for moderates and anyone you don't consider "pure" enough is

Disgusting.

[Lerkfish]

131. irony again.

:shrug:

[cali]

132. LOL. You don't seem to get that tossing one word out over and

over again hardly spotlights intellectual analysis. If it's irony, try and explain what's so ironic about it. I won't be holding my breath. I don't think you're able to do it.

[Lerkfish]

141. sure. I'm glad to help you out.

your accusation: "YOU have no right to tell me who I am or how I should self-identify.
No right to do that whatsoever. That's exclusionary bullshit.
And your contempt for moderates and anyone you don't consider "pure" enough is
Disgusting."

I haven't been. That's what YOU"VE been doing. That's why its ironic -- you keep accusing me of the very offenses you commit.

I've been saying I disagree with the definition in the OP, and I disagree that sparkly is the best arbiter of who is "left " and "self-proclaimed left".
now, that is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of me trying to force my definition on you or anyone else. it is a REACTION to someone else doing that.

That is why its ironic.

I can see no purpose for your disgust against me, actually.

[cali]

202. hmm.

You started out in this thread by telling the OP they were not a member of the left by saying:

"I think you're attempting to define what's in a room while standing outside of the room."

Then you told the OP he/she was incapable of grasping something you deemed simple:

"50 miles over your head, apparently"

Then after telling the OP that he/she was outside the room, you accused her/him of :

"Apparently, you feel you've already filled that position.
aren't you trying to the spokesperson for all leftists in this thread?"


You know, when you start off by saying that someone is "outside the room" and thus couldn't possibly know what the left is, and then follow with "50 miles over your head", and tossing in irony, irony, irony, you're not exactly engaging in dialogue, either.

[Lerkfish]

213. this is becoming pointlessly circular.

the OP, you know, the FIRST POST in the thread started by defining who was or wan't a true lefty vs. a "self-proclaimed lefty"

MY first post was in REACTION to the first post. you keep acting like MY first post started the thread. I won't explain that point again. You may continue to pretend to not understand it at your leisure.

and here is my dialogue:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2029490&mesg_id=2032078

[Sparkly]

92. Which "leftists?"

How do you know this?

[kineneb]

76. thank you

I was raised by FDR Dems, who had survived the Depression; one year, they lived in a tent-house. My grandfather helped organize the local IAM union. What you have written is what I learned from them.

The forces arrayed against honesty, compassion and transparency have always been out there. Right now, they are winning; but we must not let them take over completely, or the world's common people will be doomed to a life of slavery (more so even than now).

Jesus, Tathagata (Buddha), St. Francis, and so many others represent what "left" really means: People come before money, profit is not god, material wealth is an illusion, greed is harmful, power for power's sake destroys.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

78. Throughout history, "realism" has been the club to hit reformers over the head with

It was "realistic" to have any system of government other than a monarchy, because kings had a divine right and only the aristocrats were capable of governing.

It wasn't "realistic" to have freedom of conscience, because there was only one truth, defined by whichever religion the king happened to follow.

It wasn't "realistic" for women to own property or vote, because women were delicate and needed to be protected from the realities of life by their husbands or fathers.

It wasn't "realistic" to abolish slavery, because the entire economic system of the South depended on it.

It wasn't "realistic" to have workers making demands of employers, because they should just be grateful to have a job.

It wasn't "realistic" to ban child labor, because families needed the money they brought in.

It wasn't "realistic" to think that the government could do anything about the economy, because depressions were inevitable.

It wasn't "realistic" for African-Americans to have equal rights, because segregation was part of Southern culture.

It wasn't "realistic" for women to do "men's work," because they were too weak and emotional to handle it.

It wasn't "realistic" for Third World colonies to have their freedom, because dark-skinned people were just simple, irresponsible children.

I could go on, but you get my point.

If it hadn't been for idealists constantly pushing the limits of what's acceptable, we'd still be serfs.

That's why I bristle whenever anyone talks about "idealists" as if there's something wrong with being an idealist.

I'd rather be an idealist than someone who can't see past the status quo.

[Sparkly]

94. Nothing wrong with idealism.

But there's no progress toward ideals without grounding in reality.

And I disagree that the progress you listed was ever anything but realistic.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

228. Maybe you need to go back to your history books

At the Seneca Falls conference, the first national feminist conference in 1847 or thereabouts, the main topic of concern was property and child custody rights for women. In those days, once a woman married, she lost all legal existence, and if there was a divorce, her husband retained all real and personal property that she had brought to the marriage, as well as an absolute right to custody of any minor children. During the marriage, he controlled her property, which is why all those old novels are full of men who are delighted to marry heiresses.


When somebody at the conference brought up the notion of women VOTING, it was considered too shocking and radical to propose seriously.

It took over 70 years for women to win the right to vote nationwide, and only one participant in the Seneca Falls conference, a teenager at the time, lived to see it happen.

So much for all such reforms having been considered "realistic."

[Sparkly]

241. I've studied it.

I know it was considered shocking and radical.

The women did not think it "unrealistic," however, and it wasn't. They kept the fight on for as long as it took -- and they used the political process -- and other structures of the country and society -- to effect change.

What they did was EFFECTIVE. It's not about the goals, but the processes. What they did worked, eventually, for their goals.

[HughBeaumont]

82. I don't do the whole "acceptance" thing.

And I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton.

Not in the primaries, not in the general.

Not now, not EVER.

Should she be our nominee, I will vote for a Democrat. I will write in Al Gore or John Edwards. It's not going to count, but who cares? Obviously not America, who will have placed two people against each other who BELIEVED the worst president in history. THAT's who you want running our country? I DON'T.

A choice between a Murdoch-annointed free-trader war corporatist and . . . another Murdoch-annointed free-trader war corporatist isn't a choice at all. That's a wasted vote AND a wasted democracy.

Don't blame me if Dumberica, over and over and over again, can't get it through their goddamned thick skulls not to vote against their own interests.

[Sparkly]

98. "It's not going to count, but who cares?"

WHO CARES???

Unbelievable. And you talk about "goddamned thick skulls."

[redqueen]

123. That is some righteous pissed-offness.

There's five letters that shoot that thought process all to hell.

SCOTUS.


*sigh*

[HughBeaumont]

164. *sigh* is right.

Hey, I don't know what to tell you. I don't want it to be this way, the wealthy do. And whatever the wealthy want, the wealthy will get. A shitty candidate is a shitty candidate and we got them on both sides of the fence.

Sandy Day O'Connor was hardly an Alito, Scalia or Roberts in ideology, yet she voted to illegally install the Failure Fuhrer out of spite. What say anyone on THAT?

When is someone going to stand up for the people? This country doesn't need business as usual, it needs CHANGE. With Hillary, YOU WILL NOT GET CHANGE.

I voted for Gore, I voted for Kerry. They were honest candidates who made a ton of mistakes and dealt with too many intangibles. Hillary is a pile of corporatist crapola.

[redqueen]

167. I can certainly see your point of view, I hope you know.

I'm right on the line. I can see both sides.

However, I come down on the side of "however lesser evil, it's lesser", after I consider what other rights may be stripped if more radical justices are appointed.

I can see your point, though, truly... because if you read my other posts... I explain how people refusing to vote for one of the two parties, if done in enough numbers, has successfully forced one of the parties to adopt the planks of the third party.

So... *sigh*... what else can we do? Nobody has all the answers... we can only do the best we can, and I'm sure everyone on this site already is doing that. (Okay I'm not 100% sure that 100% are, but... close enough.)

Peace. :hi:

[HughBeaumont]

165. Thanks for the ad-hominem.

I want someone to stand for the people. Is that too much to ask of a Democratic candidate?

[Sparkly]

170. Maybe it is.

Maybe they won't "stand for the people" in all the ways you want.

Then what?

[Totally Committed]

180. The point is, then WHY VOTE FOR HER/HIM???????

If they won't stand for the things we need a candidate to stand for, WHY VOTE FOR THEM???? Just because of the (D). We've been doing that for years now, and you see where THAT'S gotten us.

Nowhere. With a Party and a Congress that WILL NOT represent us because with corporate $$$ they don't HAVE to.

Why sanction that shit with a vote?

TC

[Sparkly]

194. Because it is the ONLY hope.

Because to go forward you have to stop things from going backward.

Because one TINY step in the right direction is better than a step backward.

Because every TINY step in EITHER direction is massively important.

Because it's another chance to TRY to bring more people onboard in a way that CAN, ultimately, hopefully, if unrealistically to you, bring a REAL change.

[Totally Committed]

208. Our only hope of what?

Having blood on our hands, too, when they back off our mandate, because we voted for them, after all?

I'm too close to the end of my life to comfortable with that, thank you. I believed one too many "politicians" and their promises. I voted for one too may (D)'s that really weren't. I can't do that again. I won't do that again.

My soul needs some peace.

TC

[Sparkly]

210. Of progress.

Don't believe politicians and their promises.

But believe it can be WORSE under Republicans, and it can -- however incrementally -- be better without them.

[leftchick]

235. hope of getting our hopes up

again and again and again for a complicit party? no thanks. I am with you TC. If it is corporate candidate on the ballot, I am writing in a progressive.

[Sparkly]

242. What are your hopes, then?

And how will writing in another candidate bring you hope?

[leftchick]

266. I can sleep at night

knowing I have not contributed to the corrupt parties and electoral system in this country. If you haven't noticed, it ain't working. Voting for the same shit gets you what? The same shit different day.

[Sparkly]

301. What's your idea for making things better? nt

[ShortnFiery]

126. I'm with you 100% with one minor exception.

If HRC is the nominee, I'll probably write in Kucinich. :hi:

[Totally Committed]

181. But, why bother to vote at all?

The election is a "fraud" whether it is "stolen" by the machines, or because the "pre-selected" candidate "wins" in an election we choose to legitimize with our votes? They won't count. The "powers that be" don't care. And, as has been for A LONG TIME, the chosed candidate will be INSTALLED, whether we vote or not.

Sorry to be so cynical, but that's what I believe.

TC

[Sparkly]

195. So what do you suggest?

Give up?

[Totally Committed]

212. Give up what? The ILLUSION that our vote actually counts?

I used to read this George Carlin rant whenever I was feeling particularly cynical about the state of things in the Democratic Party. I would say to myself, "Well, at least things aren't REALLY this bad."

Now, I read this, and think this is EXACTLY right:

There's a reason that education sucks, and it’s the same reason it will never ever ever be fixed. It’s never going to get any better, don’t look for it. Be happy with what you’ve got. Because the owners of this country don’t want that. I’m talking about the real owners now, the big, wealthy, business interests that control all things and make the big decisions.

Forget the politicians, they’re irrelevant.

Politicians are put there to give you that idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations, and they’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the State Houses, and the City Halls. They’ve got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies so they control just about all the news and information you get to hear.

They’ve got you by the balls.

They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else. But I’ll tell you what they don’t want—they don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interest. You know something, they don’t want people that are smart enough to sit around their kitchen table and figure out how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.

They don’t want that, you know what they want?

They want obedient workers, obedient workers. People who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it.

And now they’re coming for your social security money.

They want your fucking retirement money; they want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all from you sooner or later because they own this fucking place. It’s a big club and you ain’t in it! You and I are not in the Big Club. By the way, it’s the same big club they use to beat you in the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to believe, what to think and what to buy.

The table is tilted folks, the game is rigged.

Nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care. Good honest hard working people, white collar, blue collar, it doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard working people continue, these are people of modest means, continue to elect these rich cocksuckers who don’t give a fuck about them. They don’t give a fuck about you. They don’t give a fuck about…give a fuck about you! They don’t care about you at all, at all, at all.

And nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care.

That’s what the owners count on, the fact that Americans are and will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white, and blue dick that’s being jammed up their assholes everyday. Because the owners of this country know the truth, it’s called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.

All too true, I feel, these days.

That's how I honestly feel. I look at the ascension of Hillary Clinton in the wake of two Bush terms, and I KNOW this is how it works now. I just refuse to endorse it with my "vote" now.

TC

[Sparkly]

216. The differences we'd LIKE to see aren't there.

But there ARE differences, and they matter.

I agree with the Carlin piece. But there's a difference in the parties to unions. There's a stark difference on regulation, important to workers. There's a difference in the judiciary system, now stacked on every level with neo-con rightwinger fundamentalists!! There's a difference on healthcare, childcare, reproductive rights, civil rights, education, etc.

Is it ALL the difference I wish it were? Of course not. Nor do I look to politicians to care -- just to make a step this way, and another, and maybe another, for whatever their reasons. It's a dirty game.

Voting Democratic isn't endorsing it all to me, TC. But I refuse to watch it get even worse under Republicans -- as it has, and would -- without knowing my vote went the other way carrying even a shred of hope with it.

[Totally Committed]

222. Do you know how I feel for voting for people who watched the people of NO drown and did nothing?

Do you know how I feel every time a soldier or civilian dies in Iraq because people I voted for won't lift a fucking finger?

I have blood on my hands. We all do. And, I never wanted it there in the first place. We endorse the actions of the people we choose to vote for with that vote. I can't sleep some nights because I am responsible. We all are.

No more.

TC

[Sparkly]

226. I guess the question is,

do you feel LESS responsible if you don't vote for them, even if it means more of a slide toward theocratic fascism?

Or do you really see no difference in even the small steps that Democrats would make?

[iamthebandfanman]

93. political compass charts are bogus n/t

[Sparkly]

99. Oh, okay. nt

[Adelante]

110. Lefter than thou

That's what it always comes down to on DU. You made a good try, Sparkly.

[redqueen]

111. Either that or "saner" / "more realistic" than thou.

It goes both ways.

[Sparkly]

117. How about "more effective"

THAT would be a worthwhile argument, and one I'd be pleased to lose in order to learn.

[redqueen]

121. They're less common...

but those do happen.

We don't have many examples to work from, though. For instance, LBJ's success with pushing the prorgressive agenda is attributed by some to his being a blackmailer... so... it's hard to have a constructive discussion when there are so many variables that someone use to explain how the situation backs their view.


Edited to say: we don't have many examples in this country. But that's a key point, because what has worked elsewhere might not work here for one reason or another.

[LandOLincoln]

287. Agreed, "lefter than thou" as well as amazing self-righteousness. And just plain

holier than thou whining about their goddamned consciences.

You'd think they'd have learned SOMETHING seven years ago, wouldnya, all those abstainers and Nader-voters and "there's no difference between the two"-ers?

[LWolf]

115. The world would be a much darker place

without the idealists.

I remain, proudly and defiantly, an Idealist first, then an environmentalist, then a leftist-libertarian, then a U.S. Citizen, and then an independent-minded Democrat.

[Sparkly]

118. Yup -- I don't think anybody can want what isn't without being Idealist.

How could we even envision it?

But we can't take a step toward it without being realistic as well.

[LWolf]

155. I have some thoughts about that.

I think, as Gandhi said, we create the change we want to see, not by wishing for it, but by "being" it. That doesn't seem realistic, but we know that when people hear, see, speak, and behave as if something is real for long enough, it becomes real. We've seen the negative side of that phenomenon too often in U.S., with people, after hearing something repeated often enough by the media, parrot it as truth until it shapes the perceptions and positions of the masses.

To be a realist means that one must accept harsh realities; it's not the same as being a pragmatist. I believe that this is current reality: the Democratic Party is currently too corrupt to serve the people, or uphold her ideals. I can't, and won't, turn a blind eye to that.

That reality requires stepping outside of the "safety zone," where the world, and politics, and political parties, are ordered the way you've always believed.

There's more than one facet to idealism as well as to realism, and a realist must acknowledge all. Idealism seems extreme, but realism is quite harsh in her own way.

I think that we need to find where they meet, and work from there. I think that's what you are saying. I just don't think they meet within any political party. I think that meeting place is outside of partisan politics.

[Sparkly]

160. I agree.

And no, they don't meet within any political party.

[Greyhound]

120. "From a Lefty to the self-proclaimed Lefties here"; or "What is wrong with America" n/t

Here's a :kick: anyway.

[Totally Committed]

122. Dear Sparkly,

No post is written in a vaccuum. I understand that.

I went to bed one night at the tail-end of my 50's and woke up to see the bodies of my fellow Americans floating in what used to be the streets of New Orleans. As the waters subsided, I found myself newly-radicalized. I went to bed at the tail-end of my 50's thinking I was a "Lefty", and woke up to realize I had drifted to the comfortable center in my middle years, and while I meant no harm, and still had compassion, I had mellowed to the point where most people are just before they accept the protective umbrella of AARP.

Today, I really AM the "looney" Left, and I'm proud of it. I think sometimes it's hard for us, as we get older, to resist getting comfortable... to be unwilling to rock the boat, or to become so rigid in our thinking that we can't possibly allow others around us to grow in directions different than our own. I understand where this post came from. The pre-Katrina TC could and probably would have written it. I don't judge it, but I disagree with it... respectfully.

Love always,

TC, a proud, far-Left Idealist

[Sparkly]

162. What do you disagree with, TC? nt

[Totally Committed]

174. With great respect for you....

(1) The tone of the OP was confrontational, and the term "self-proclaimed" in the title left you open to the charge of condescension, so right off the bat, some could call it a sort of challenge the integrity, and the idealism of The Left (self-proclaimed or not). I know you probably didn't mean it that way, but even I read it that way first.

(2) I disagree with your characterization of what a "Lefty" is. I understand you are only giving your perspective on this, but it was worded so strongly as to also sound like a "challenge" (i.e. "If you aren't this way, you are now and always will be seen as this.

(3) That brings us to "Reality". (See post #78) I agree about 100% with what Lydia has to say here, so I won't reiterate, except to re-state the title of her post: Throughout history, "realism" has been the club to hit reformers over the head with. The tone and tenor of this board has been so pro-"moderate", so anti-liberal, so love-it-or-leave-it, so nasty lately, choosing this time to write a piece with that title, and this content could be seen as a "realistically" seen as an insult or affront to some to your Left.

(4) Some of us are NOT willing to vote for the Democratic nominee "no matter who it is", and we are kind of tired of being lectured about it, and criticized for it, and sort of ostracized for it, as well.

(5) Finally, your OP is built on the assumption that there is a substantive difference between the two Parties, their candidates, and and their issues. Some of us no longer believe that to be true. We see a vote for most of the candidates running as a vote for the continuation of the status quo. And, there are some of us who will not do that ever again.

Not all candidates with a (D) after their name on the ballots will function as Democrats when elected, so why vote for them?

Not all candidates with a (D) after their name on the ballots share the ideals of the Democratic Party those "Lefties" like me want back, so why vote for them?

Not all candidates with a (D) after their name on the ballots share our ethics about war & peace, corporatism, poverty, equality, and so on, so why vote for them?

Answer is, we won't. And not all the lecturing, "ranting", condescension, ridicule, derisiveness, or "reality" is gonna make it so.

Please try and understand where we are coming from. This OP was not the optimal way to approach this subject. The tone was not respectful to those of us who do disagree subtantively with what you had to say. That is not your usual way of handling things, so I have to assume you are as frustrated as we are. All I ask is that you remember that.

Peace, always.

TC

[Sparkly]

190. Thanks.

1.) It is confrontational. I think there's plenty of Left-As-Fashion-Label here, and it seems to ME that it's about emotions, posturing, and often just acting like spoiled children. That has NOTHING to do with political philosophy at all, and I hate watching the term "left" become synonymous with that. These are "leftists" who turn on a dime at a loud speech or a disagreeable vote; who will embrace what I think are some truly backward people and ideas on very little; who insist the war is the ONLY thing, hell with everything else; who confuse means with ends and ends with means; and who seem to have little interest in discussing leftism, socialism, communism, etc. in favor of perpetual fits of indignation at being put upon -- particularly, put upon to support Democrats over third parties at a forum called Democratic Underground.

2.) Don't know how you got that, but okay.

3.) As I said, reality bites. As I said to Lydia, I do not believe the progress she cited was unrealistic. I think we do have many realistic goals in sight! But I do NOT think it's realistic to think that counter-productive action will lead to progress toward those goals. That's the reality.

4.) The post is about MY point of view and why *I* am a Lefty who has and will vote Democratic. I'm sorry you're tired of hearing it; such is disagreement.

5.) There are indeed substantive differences in the party's platforms. I've posted on this numerous times. No, the Democratic candidate won't be ideal to a Socialist. I think they DO "function as Democrats" -- I think we need to remember that WE are not the majority of Democrats.

And as I said, I think pushing the boulder uphill -- even if ONLY to keep it from sliding down further -- is critically important.

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Greyhound]

185. I'm unclear as to just what insult I thew at you, perhaps you would explain.

The point of your post seems to be that if we just keep trying the same thing long enough, eventually it will work. Your self-described rant was just that, it has no basis in fact, political or historical. You do seem to think that what ever is left of the extreme right is center, 70% of the world disagrees.

The reason I made this reply to TC was that she clearly stated exactly what influenced her "transformation" as it is indicative of what is almost always required for such an event to take place.

[Totally Committed]

191. I think what this thread tells me more than anything is this:

We are not wanted here any longer. We seem to have gotten on the last good nerve of those closer to the "Center" and/or "Right", and we are a vexation to their very souls.

I have "known" Sparkly since about 2003, and there isn't a mean bone in her body. To have her go off like a Roman candle this way, we must have really pissed on her petunias for the least time.

And, it's not just her, it's a lot of good, decent centrists here. Maybe it's time for the true Lefties to leave, and let them elect who they are told to elect in peace. I'm getting tired of fighting about this, especially with people I know and like. Time to say "good-bye", "I wish you well", and take a hike. We don't appreciate the lectures, and theyobviously can't stad that we can exist intime and space, and feel as we feel. --- Never the twain shall meet.

Whattaya say, greyhound?

TC

[Sparkly]

192. TC - I don't understand all this "True Lefties" vs. "Center and/or Right"...

I don't think I even went off like a Roman candle... :shrug:

I'm hardly a centrist. Our argument is solely about the MEANS of change.

[Totally Committed]

200. I meant you "went off" in the thread, not in the OP.

I should have been clearer.

I know it doesn't seem like you are a "centrist" (and I don't mean that as an insult, just as a means of placing you on the political scale of the Democratic Party at the moment...), but I was, too, until Katrina. I got comfortable. I got too trusting. I forgot the true ideals I had always fought for when I was younger and far more "radical". I was re-radicalized, and the change in my politics now speaks for itself. (My granddaughter calls me "Che". LOL!)

I feel as though we do get comfortable as we get older, we go more to the center, and we get comfortable. If you had asked me in 2003, I would have told you I was a real "Leftie", too. But, I wasn't. Not really. I think you are a bit in denial about that, just as I was.

Maybe your "Katrina" is coming. Maybe it never will. But, I contend you will never again be truly "Left" until or unless it does. And fighting the way you are with every "leftie" who has disagreed with you in this thread has only underscored that belief in me.

You are a Leftist who has moved to the relative comfort of the center. When you realize that and either embrace it or change it is when you will understand where we "self-proclaimed" Lefites are coming from.

TC

[Sparkly]

205. TC, I've always respected you, but I find that incredibly condescending.

I am not seeing a shred of difference here in goals -- only in strategies.

And I see "left" as political philosophy, goals, ideals -- not a set of (what I see as counter-productive) strategies.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions about me, simply for having the audacity to vote for Democrats. You suggest I am not moved the way you are, haven't had the "Katrina" revelations you have, am "comfortable," etc. Where is this coming from?

I don't think this has anything to do with being "Left." And that was very much part of the point of my OP.

[Totally Committed]

214. I never meant it that way at all.

I'm older than you, and I recognize the "voice" with which the OP was written. It was my voice at one time, too. I was simply trying to tell you that the day may come when you are shaken out of your present political position, and then you'll be able to see, better, where the "Left" really was all the time.

Again, I'm sorry you felt it was condescending in any way. It was not meant that way at all. And, it is threads and posts like this, and the hurt feelings between people who essentially like each other, that is the reason I don't feel I belong here any longer. I haven't got the appetite to fight with people I actually like especially after being dragged through mud by people I can't stand.

It's has beome a lose/lose situation.

TC

[Sparkly]

217. What "Left" do you refer to?

What do you call "Left?"

Edit: Maybe it's time for a break... but not a farewell. I could use one, too.

[Totally Committed]

220. No, it's time to go. I just got this in my inbox...

since it's one of the nicer ones I've gotten for expressing my my opinion here of late, I'll share it with you:

Congrats!

From: XXXXXXXXX
Date: Oct-12-07 02:17 PM

By declaring you won't vote for the Democratic nominee if (God forbid) it is Hillary you have aligned yourself with the Repubs. Therefore you win my ignore list!

I get these "fuck you" PMs and e-mails every day from bully after bully just for expressing my opinions here.

Time to go.


TC

[Sparkly]

230. Just take a break, TC.

:hug:

[Lerkfish]

239. You asked for proof of how badly "leftists" are treated here

and there you have it.

[Sparkly]

240. I don't think it's about being "leftist."

I think it's about not voting for the Democrat in the general election.

That's really what my post is about: my belief that the two are not mutually exclusive.

(And yes, my belief that a lot of what's called "leftism" here is not about political ideology at all.)

[HughBeaumont]

265. Are you shitting me?

Who the hell sent you that?

Jesus, I HATE "loyalty oath" bullshit like that!!

I just don't see why it absolutely HAS to be Hillary. Do we really WANT a candidate that is so obviously going to divide the Democrats of this country worse than ANY candidate has in the past (look what it's doing to this board . . . you don't think the rest of this country's going to be the same way)?

Do we REALLY want someone who believed, unapologetically, the worst president this nation has ever had running this country?

Tell me how Democratic it is to see positives in outsourcing.

Doesn't ANYone see the master plan by the Repuke-ran corporations?

[Marrah_G]

297. Ugh

Why do people send crappy PMs like that. I might disagree with you but I would never treat others like that. People can be such incredible jerks to each other. It is sad.

[Lerkfish]

199. I certainly wouldn't fault that assessment

cheers.

the thing is, I don't want to give up DU to being ONLY centrist.

[Totally Committed]

203. Lerkfish... It is what it is. This is no place for us any longer.

It's not fun. It's not welcoming. It's not friendly.

Like the Party, it has moved to a place where we are no longer of any consequence. We are not respected here. Why stay?

I am asking myself that more and more every day.

Why stay?

TC

[Sparkly]

207. Nobody's having a problem with LEFTISM here.

Edited cause I shouldn't make absolute statements: MOST people are not criticizing LEFTISM.

[Lerkfish]

221. well, you're conveniently labeling people as "self-professed lefitsts" and THEN

you're having a problem with those people you've relabeled, and then claiming no one has a problem with leftism.

its just a convenient way to make yourself right by defining yourself as correct.

but, as I commented in my dissection of your OP, it would appear to me at least that YOU are having a problem with leftism, you're just refusing to label it as leftism. I guess you're calling it "looneyism".

[Sparkly]

227. Oh, God...

My problem is not with leftism.

Yes, I'm challenging people who CLAIM they're "left" when it has little or nothing to do with actual political philosophy. That was part of my post.

Yes, I'm saying what I believe. So in that sense, I think I'm correct.

Yes, I believe I have a problem with "loonyism," and not "leftism." I'm not saying which you are -- I really don't know.

[Lerkfish]

236. you essentially agreed with most of my points. So I'm unclear why you needed to say "oh God".

:shrug:

[Sparkly]

238. This is silly, Lerkfish.

I most certainly did not agree with your "points." Please read my post again.

Edited for punctuation around "points."

[Lerkfish]

244. sure, i'll be happy to explain:

common points highligted in bold:


my post:

well, you're conveniently labeling people as "self-professed lefitsts" and THEN

you're having a problem with those people you've relabeled, and then claiming no one has a problem with leftism.

its just a convenient way to make yourself right by defining yourself as correct.

but, as I commented in my dissection of your OP, it would appear to me at least that YOU are having a problem with leftism, you're just refusing to label it as leftism. I guess you're calling it "looneyism".

your post:

My problem is not with leftism.

Yes, I'm challenging people who CLAIM they're "left" when it has little or nothing to do with actual political philosophy. That was part of my post.

Yes, I'm saying what I believe. So in that sense, I think I'm correct.

Yes, I believe I have a problem with "loonyism," and not "leftism." I'm not saying which you are -- I really don't know.


my post:

you essentially agreed with most of my points. So I'm unclear why you needed to say "oh God".

your post:

I most certainly did not agree with your "points." Please read my post again.

now this post:

you agreed on what I said you were doing, the only disagreement is that you are doing it to the "looneyists" instead of the "leftists", which is reason we can't agree, because we define it differently.

that's why I said MOST of my points you agreed with, not all.

but your'e right about one thing: parts of this discussion ARE silly.

:)

[Sparkly]

250. Yes, silly.

But seriously, it does seem we're talking about definitions.

I think perhaps what you call "Leftism" is what I consider completely separate from political ideology; instead, it's a set of behaviors and postures which have nothing to do with political philosophy, nor do they advance progress. That comes under "Loonyism."

"Leftism," as I define it, isn't loony at all. As I said, I think it's a philosophy about the role and function of government or state in relation to individuals/workers and economics, etc. etc... And we could parse that all day (but we never do on DU, do we?) because there are so many dimensions.

It may be an ideal, because the nature of human beings makes it fraught with places for falling apart (and because this country will never get rid of capitalism) but it's still a set of goals, and we still have socialist elements in our system to offset capitalism.

So to me, Leftism isn't loony; Loony is loony. Two separate things.

[Lerkfish]

255. right, and as I said from the beginning, this is about definitions

and I disagree with your definition.

It only took 50 posts between us for you to understand what I've been saying all along.

I do notice you never came back to the substantive dissection of your OP I posted further up. Now why is that? If you consider these other subthreads silly, why avoid the substantive response?

[Sparkly]

263. I started Lerky. Go look.

Still don't get what you disagree with, either. :shrug:

What's your definition?

[Totally Committed]

176. Well, I know this Sparkly, and she has got to be at her wits' end to write that OP.

I'm a little older, but I suspect the only difference between her "moderate" approach, and my "immoderate" one is that I have been scraped raw, and she hasn't (yet).

It may be time for those of us who are further to the Left of this Sparkly and the others to leave and let this place go where it has been irrevocably heading for a long while now -- to the Center and Right beyond. We are doing nothing but setting each other off, and there's no need for it.

Those of us further left are not wanted here any longer. I am feeling like someone who went to a Party, and refuses to leave until all the chips and dip are gone, and the last beer has been drunk.

Time to let the "Democrats" of DU find their way, I'm thinking, and concentrate on finding our own. I don't like provoking this response in someone who used to be a very close political ally. Now I do, and it is uncomfortable, at best.

TC

[Greyhound]

198. I don't know her, but have been around enough to have a good idea

of where she is coming from. They are reasonably comfortable, reasonably healthy, retired or believe their occupations to be reasonably secure, and because of this, are able to ignore the ubiquitous signs of disintegration that are all around us. I, like you, was one.

While I have been trying to make people see where we are headed since the 80s, it still took a series of disasters to really wake me up too, and I would spare others from that if possible.

I've joined other boards, am still a member (I think) of two others, but I don't see the benefit of the echo chamber. Except for the odd reply like this one to you, I really don't do this to change a posters mind, I've found that to be unlikely at best, but to get the point out to the far greater number of lurkers that haven't solidified their positions.

I'm afraid that our nation is choosing sides and soon any debate will be useless.

[Sparkly]

201. No, you don't "know about her."

I am NOT "ignoring the ubiquitous signs of disintegration that are all around us."

We have a disagreement about what to do to get where we want to go, not a disagreement about where we want to go.

I'd appreciate your NOT making any further assumptions about people's lives, jobs, security, etc., as though you've "woken up" and people who disagree with your tactics have not.

[Greyhound]

215. If you're not ignoring the plight of others, you are advocating a rather bizarre way of addressing

it. Perhaps you will relate your tales of suffering and persecution that caused you to reach the conclusion that the status quo is just fine.

We are where we are because of exactly what you are advocating. The reich-wing took over this nation by exactly the means that you claim to be hopeless. They never had a majority they did it through decibels, remember the "moral majority", and the accompanying reply that they are neither?

As has historically always been the case, in the 70s the uninvolved sheep in the middle got uncomfortable and flocked to the voice that said, "You are superior to those 'others' and I know how to make it all better". Republics and Democrats alike, created this perversion and you say that "if only we can just get more of the same", it will change.

[Sparkly]

218. "your tales of suffering and persecution"

What the hell is your problem?

I didn't say a thing you keep insisting I said -- or rather, that it "seems" I said or "seems" I'm advocating. :eyes:

If you have such a problem supporting Democrats over third parties on Democratic Underground, maybe that's your problem.

[Greyhound]

224. My "problem" is your insistence that trying to force change is useless

so it is better to go with slightly less evil. That is how we got here.

Has nothing to do with the letter after someone's name, it is the person. We are the path to destruction and it doesn't matter who is driving if they won't turn around.

BTW, you (thankfully) don't get to decide what is allowed on DU, and nobody but you has mentioned a third party. This is about principle.

[Sparkly]

229. Okay, now we're talking about tactics -- at least we've made that clear.

I don't think trying to force change is useless. I think it's useless to try to force change in ways that are useless!!

[leftist_not_liberal]

268. Oh Shame On You

You are one terrible Trotskyist!

:)

[Tech 9]

274. A terrible Trotskyite

would be one that didn't think they knew better than everyone else. And they'd probably live in Russia just for the capper.

[Tech 9]

275. Its not about principle

Its not about me or you or the path of destruction "we're" on. Thats the least of our worries -- we're two assholes posting on the internet. I doubt we have the worst of things. Its not about who's driving or turning the car around" either.

I don't think its about forcing change either because I don't know what that means. The monolith has to be toppled, ground to a fucking halt. Not because we think the country's going down the toilet -- that just makes us sound like the candy asses we are. I'm sure women working in textile mills in China (maybe the closest modern equivalent to Marx's "Satanic Mills") feel our pain that the economy is in the shitter.

Commodity-based social relations infuse and shape every single aspect of our lives. Yes, there are positives -- neat gadgets, consumer goods galore, a cushy lifestyle -- but at what price? Wake up every day, go to your shit job, work until you're 6..errrr 75. Then its time to die. Is that the best we can hope for? The best society can do? And that's just in America, where there is relative prosperity compared to most of the world.

So, if its about principle..tell me which ones. It can't be American values or the principles of democracy. We've seen exactly how far that gets us. It can't even be about principles of human rights -- the OP rightly calls that liberal hand wringing. We want to help "those poor, afflicted people". Except, the best way to help them would be to level the playing field and give them an equal chance as us..and "we" aren't willing to do that, are we? We are ready to get behind imperial-backed campaigns in the name of blood-letting and muscle-flexing though, aren't we? (myanmar, Darfur, Yugoslavia, even Iraq)

We don't know the half of it

[Tech 9]

281. Here is a relevant article regarding the above

NY Times, October 12, 2007
Crackdown Upends Slaughterhouse?s Work Force
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

TAR HEEL, N.C. ? Last November, immigration officials began a crackdown

at Smithfield Foods?s giant slaughterhouse here, eventually arresting
21
illegal immigrants at the plant and rousting others from their trailers

in the middle of the night.

Since then, more than 1,100 Hispanic workers have left the
5,200-employee hog-butchering plant, the world?s largest, leaving it
struggling to find, train and keep replacements.

Across the country, the federal effort to flush out illegal immigrants
is having major effects on workers and employers alike. Some companies
have reluctantly raised wages to attract new workers following raids at

their plants.

After several hundred immigrant employees at its plant in Stillmore,
Ga., were arrested, Crider Poultry began recruiting Hmong workers from
Minnesota, hiring men from a nearby homeless mission and providing free

van transportation to many workers.

So far, Smithfield has largely replaced the Hispanics with American
workers, who often leave poorly paid jobs for higher wages at the plant

here. But the turnover rate for new workers ? many find the work
grueling and the smell awful ? is twice what it was when Hispanics
dominated the work force.

Making Smithfield?s recruiting challenge even harder is the fact that
many local residents have worked there before and soured on the
experience. As a result, Smithfield often looks far afield for new
employees.

Fannie Worley, a longtime resident of Dillon, S.C., a largely
African-American town of sagging trailers and ramshackle bungalows,
quit
her $5.25-an-hour, part-time job making beds at a Days Inn motel four
months ago to take a $10.75-an-hour job at Smithfield. But Ms. Worley
remains ambivalent.

?It pays a lot better,? she said. ?But the trip is too long.?

Around 1 p.m. each day, C. J. Bailey, a Smithfield worker, picks up Ms.

Worley and 10 other employees in his big white van. They arrive at the
plant around 2:15, and he drops them back home after 1 a.m.

Several of the newly hired workers in the van ? they pay $40 a week for

the ride ? said they were thinking of quitting, unhappy about having to

commute so far and work so hard. At the plant, where the pay averages
around $12 an hour, many spend hour after hour slitting hogs? throats,
hacking at shoulders and carving ribs and loins. At the end of their
shifts, many workers complain that their muscles are sore and their
minds are numb.

Employee turnover has long been a problem at Smithfield and other
meat-processing plants, but the problem has grown worse recently.
Dennis
Pittman, a Smithfield spokesman, said 60 percent of the new workers
quit
within 90 days of being hired, compared with 25 percent to 30 percent
two years ago when many new employees were illegal immigrants.

?I?ve heard officials from a couple of other meat processors say
they?ve
never seen such high turnover with new workers,? Mr. Pittman said.

Several Southern companies have raised wages to attract new workers
after immigration raids. ?But that?s not the first thing that employers

are going to do,? said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center

for Immigration Studies. ?They?re going to try to cast their net wider
before they do something that will raise costs.?

Smithfield, for example, has run a flood of television advertisements
boasting that the company is a good, safe place to work. The
advertisements aim to persuade Carolinians to apply for jobs and to
counter arguments made by a union trying to organize the plant that
Smithfield jobs are high stress and unsafe, with stingy benefits.

One of the toughest challenges, Mr. Pittman said, has been training new

employees to handle the highest-skilled jobs at a plant that processes
30,000 hogs a day.

?The big problem is we lost a lot of people who were there a long
time,?
Mr. Pittman said. ?We have been facing difficulties in hiring for a
number of years, because as the economy got better, the labor market
became much tighter.?

When the plant opened in 1992, the area?s jobless rate was high because

tobacco was in retreat and textile mills were closing. Early on, most
employees were black. That changed with an influx of Hispanic
immigrants, most of them Mexicans, in the mid-1990s.

Chris Kromm, executive director of the Institute for Southern Studies,
said the Hispanics should not be viewed as shoving blacks aside,
because
the plant had such high turnover.

?It?s not as if these jobs were stable sources of employment for
creating a black middle class,? Mr. Kromm said.

The way Hector David, a longtime worker from Mexico who quit in
February, sees it, Smithfield had been eager to hire Hispanics because
they worked so hard. ?The Americans just don?t work as well,? Mr. David

said. ?In Mexico, we work from the age of 5 in the corn fields. We?re
used to working hard.?

The New York Times wrote about the sometimes uneasy relations between
blacks and Hispanics at the Smithfield plant as part of a 2000 series
that examined race relations in the United States.

Mr. Pittman said Smithfield did its best to ensure that immigrant
employees had legitimate documentation. But many workers said
Smithfield
did not look too hard at the paperwork.

Last November, the company notified 640 employees that their identity
information did not match government records. In January, federal
agents
arrested 21 workers at the plant, and in August, helped by information
the company provided, agents arrested 28 more, many at home.

Mr. Pittman said cooperating with immigration officials ?serves our
goal
of 100 percent compliance 100 percent of the time.? But for many
families, the cooperation has come at a price.

Tears came to Maritza Cruz?s eyes as she described the scene when
immigration agents banged on her trailer door at 3 a.m. and arrested
her
husband, Alejandro, who faces deportation. ?Everyone is very scared,
especially after they arrested people at their homes,? said Mrs. Cruz,
who has four children and is on maternity leave from the plant.

The company and its employees are not the only ones affected by the
crackdown.

Since the enforcement actions began, said Jazmin Gastelum, owner of a
local Christian bookstore, La Tierra Prometida, business from Hispanic
customers has plunged 40 percent at her store and two nearby Hispanic
groceries. ?A lot of people are going back to Mexico,? Ms. Gastelum
said. ?And a lot who haven?t moved are scared to go outside.?

As for the workers who remain at the plant, many wonder why so many new

employees come from South Carolina. Gene Bruskin, the director of the
unionization campaign, sees a simple explanation.

?Thousands and thousands of workers from North Carolina have come
through the plant, and they left, saying, ?No way,? because they were
injured or didn?t want to work in such an oppressive atmosphere,? Mr.
Bruskin said. ?This plant burned up a large number of people, and the
word got around about their bad experiences.?

Mr. Pittman said Smithfield had hired many workers from South Carolina
because the counties close to the plant had a low unemployment rate.

The immigration arrests have also created problems for the union, the
United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which has spent 15 years
seeking to organize the plant.

?A lot of the people who left or were detained were strong union
supporters,? said Gabriel Lopez Rivera, a Smithfield worker.

Mr. Bruskin, the union official, added, ?It?s extremely difficult for
workers to stand up for their rights when they?re threatened with
arrest
or deportation.?

The Tar Heel workers voted against unionizing in 1994 and 1997, but the

National Labor Relations Board ruled that Smithfield had broken the law

by intimidating and firing union supporters.

The company has called for a new election, but the union instead wants
Smithfield to accept unionization through a majority sign-up, a process

that would give management less opportunity to pressure workers.

In recent months, union organizers have adopted a new role, rushing to
the trailers of immigrant workers facing arrest to ensure that someone
can care for their children.

Union officials recently organized educational forums at a Roman
Catholic church in Red Springs, where immigrant workers were advised,
among other things, to sign power of attorney forms designating someone

to take care of their children, finances and homes if they were
arrested.

?I think all this turmoil is helping unionization,? said the Rev.
Carlos
Arce, the priest there, ?because people feel alone and unprotected, and

they see that the union, along with the Catholic Church, is the only
organization that is trying to help them.?

[bobbolink]

130. Well-written and well thought out. Thankfully, you've left out the ad hominems so common here.

I don't agree with you on all points, but that's OK... that's why we're here.

You've written much to be thought about, and that I appreciate.

Thanks for your efforts!

:hi:

edited to add: What you've done is open the door to rational discussion on "where we go from here".

That's what I've been trying to get discussions on, as have some others, but... it always seems to devolve into sneers and attacks.

Maybe you will be successful in getting that discussion off the ground.

:toast:

[redqueen]

137. The sneers started in the OP.

Just sayin.

[bobbolink]

138. I didn't see it that way.

Just sayin.

[Lerkfish]

144. its a matter of perspective. Just because you didn't see it that way does not

determine whether others see it that way.

its egocentric to assume your perspective is the only correct one.

[bobbolink]

150. Whoa! We're on the same team, here!

I spoke for myself.

I *NEVER* claimed "it was the only correct one".

I also replied to you upstream that I may have misread the OP.

I guess I long so much for peace among "liberals" that I'm seeing it where it doesn't exist.

We've been friends, so let's not let DU make us into opponents, eh?

[Lerkfish]

197. sorry for the misunderstanding.

[redqueen]

146. Really? It starts in the subject line, even.

"From a Lefty to the self-proclaimed Lefties here"
That comment implies something, and very clearly. To miss it is to want to miss it.

More:

"Sorry if it hurts the tender feelings of people who claim to be steeled for a revolution."

"Do you really care about the social good?"

"You are not being persecuted for being “left.” Despite the all-too-common proud self-pity on that theme..."

"Self-proclaimed leftists, please look closer at criticisms and see if they’re really about your leftist views (if any)".

[Sparkly]

163. I left my etiquette book at Headquarters.

Meow! :rofl:

[redqueen]

168. Hey, it's not news!

I told ya already what I thought were the bulk of the problems in your OP... and it's not so much substance as tone.

:hi:

[bobbolink]

251. I take it back.

I thought you were trying for a civilized, thought-out post.

I'll know better in the future.

Enjoy the fireworks.

[Sparkly]

253. You read the quotes in context the first time.

I'm up to the battle. :)

[bobbolink]

257. Then go ahead and fight, if that's what you came for.

I have no stomach for it, and am sick of it here.

I do NOT understand why so many of you save your venom for "friends".

I can't figure out what you get out of it. But, as they say, "that's just me".

I prefer peace.

Bye now.

[Sparkly]

262. Not what I came for.

But it's par for the course on a discussion board -- especially if you say anything controversial or provocative.

I don't let fear of a fight stop me from saying what I think, that's all.

[Bongo Prophet]

140. Thoughtful post, Sparkly. I would not characterize it as a rant at all.

I see "left" as a relative term, of course, and so it cannot be definitively pinned down.
I have NO idea what "lefty-left" is, nor have I ever used "looney left" - that seems to be a freeper term that is being mainstreamed.
Some here on DU are probably using it now, like the "so-called "progressive"" theme used by some on this board.
Name-calling is just what we signifying apes do, since feces flinging doesn't work over long distances. :)

Anyway, nice post.

[ozone_man]

145. So you are a self proclaimed lefty?

Why do you get to a (true) lefty, while we are only self proclaimed lefty's? :)

Anyway, I am familiar with your reasoning, but don't agree with it. Real change will come with real pain. It won't happen by giving up the ghost and accepting our choice of corporate candidate A or B, or war president A or B. Those are false choices.

What is exceptional about the 2008 election is the opportunity that it presents for real change. The opportunity is there to run as a populist instead of as a DLC corporatist. The poor performance of Republican administration over the past two terms has pretty much guaranteed that a Democrat will win. But if no populist Democrat is running, then I have to cast a vote for real change. The reasoning that led to the DLC is not valid at this point. The timing is right to restore teh Democratic PArty to it's core principles, and to develop some new ones.

I make political tradeoffs too, that's why I still vote for many Democrats. There are great Democrats to vote for, but I won't vote for someone just because they are a Democrat. That's absurd. In my state (Vermont) we tend to vote for candidate positions and integrity. We elected the first socialist to the senate and our Republican senator Jeffords was one of 23 senators who voted against the Iraq Wqar Resolution. Pat Leahy of course voted against it. That requires some integrity and we reward that by keeping them in office. Party means not so much to us.

[Sparkly]

153. "Cast a vote for real change"

What's the vote for real change?

[ozone_man]

286. First ask what's the vote for not real change.

It's easier. The corporate Democrats don't stand for significant change from the status quo. Whether we vote for Giuliani or Clinton, we're going to be in Iraq for another four years. Whether we vote for Giuliani or Clinton we'll be seeing an attempt to privatize Social Security or offering an equivalent 401K plan as a Wall Street welfare program. Whether we vote for either, we won't have single payer health care. And so on.

It is true that voting for a just any Democrat, even a corporate Democrat, will be a kinder, gentler form of corporatism, one with social liberal policies, than the Republican equivalent, but it will actually delay the time for real change to occur in my opinion. So the easier path short term may actually be the longer path to social justice. I thought eight years of Bush would be enough to make people demand real change, but it's still not at the breaking point yet. Part of that is due to the economy still being kept afloat artificially by living off of our massive national deficit and personal debt. When the economy eventually fails, that will add more force for change, for economic and social equity.

A vote for real change is a relative thing of course. Some are content with the system as it is and want a few small tweaks. Others see more radical changes required. I think several candidates offer significant changes from the status quo. I'd be satisfied with Kucinich, Gravel, or Gore (though he is not running yet).

[Sparkly]

303. It's a vote for small change (no pun intended) -- so what's the one for "real change?"

What is a vote for "real change?"

A vote for Kucinich? I love him, but what does it change?

Gravel? He favors mob rule without protection for the minority at all -- there's a hair-raising interview with Mike Malloy that's well worth a listen. Besides, what will voting for him change?

Gore -- this is the big surprise to me among "lefties." Gore is not all THAT liberal, let alone left. I think he's great, I was a strong supporter in 2000, but he is NOT a hard-core lefty. He became a favorite when he was seen as outspoken, which is, I think, often confused with political ideology. (That is, it's called "left" if it's heartfelt, impassioned, bold, and 'red meat'ish...)

[ozone_man]

333. It depends where one defines their tradeoff.

Kucinich is a left wing Democrat, who represents real change. Ending the Iraq War is a real change that won't happen any time soon with Clinton as president. He is for single payer health insurance, something that the main candidates are not proposing.

We need to bring the DLC era of the Democratic Party to a close. The strategy was apparently to get as close as possible to being Republican while still being able to call themselves Democrats. These are the DINOs, which include Lieberman and Clinton. War hawks. I won't vote for DINOs.

Gravel is running to offer debate that otherwise would be lacking, since the DLC wing will not discuss certain issues like ending the Iraq war or single payer health insurance. He's not afraid to say anything, probably making Democrats like Hillary Clinton feel as uncomfortable as Republicans feel with Ron Paul talking. In each case they know that most of what they're saying is true. They just don't want to hear it.

Gore is a tradeoff candidate. He falls within the limits of my pragmatism. He's a populist like Dean. There is a significant difference between Gore and Clinton. Think of an analog scale. Gore is in the populist center of the Party, Kucinich is the left wing and Clinton is the right wing.

Many have their limit. Some will vote for Clinton, but not Lieberman. I draw the line at voting for Gore or Dean, but not Clinton. Some will vote for Kucinich, but not Gore or Dean. If it comes to voting for a DINO or a Republican, I vote 3rd party at that point. A vote of conscience is better than to reinforce a politician that you don't agree with.

Some leftists are pure idealists who just won't vote for a Democrat period. I respect that too. Their objective is to form a 3rd party by not keep knuckling under to the same corporate candidates offered by the two party system. And this may eventually work. We made it work in Vermont, we have a 3rd party that we grew over a 30 year period. We elected Sanders to be mayor, then to the House and then to the Senate. It can be done, but there are losses along the way. No pain no gain. :)

[redqueen]

149. My obsession with fairness distracted me... a disagreement on point 4...

4. Power is built upward. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: You can’t “move left” either a country or a party by whining, shouting in congressional meetings, harassing Democrats, lauding people like Ralph Nader, or voting for third-party candidates who are destined to lose.


That, IMO, is factually incorrect. History shows that the two major parties have indeed been forced to adopt the policy planks of third parties in the past... and they weren't motivated by their donors or supporters.

[Sparkly]

154. And what motivated them? nt

[redqueen]

158. People defecting to the Populist Party, in one instance. n/t

[Solon]

159. Well, in the case of the Democratic Party(FDR) to be exact, they adopted a large part of the...

Socialist party platform to help stave off a possible revolution due to the Great Depression.

[defendandprotect]

189. As they say, "FDR regulated capitalism in order to save it" ...

Capitalism is a "ridiculous King-of-the-Hill System" -- intended to move the wealth and resources of the nation from the many into the hands of the few --

Unregulated Capitalism is merely organized crime ---

[CitizenLeft]

177. thank you

*Wild applause*

I agree with every point, especially #5 - I'm one of the ones who won't survive.

[KG]

183. as a 'self proclaimed lefty', i want to thank you for setting me straight.

:eyes:

[defendandprotect]

187. Many of us are anti-capitalism -- capitalism + democracy aren't synonymous -- !!!!

I'm anti-UNREGULATED CAPITALISM . . . which is merely organized crime.

I'm flatly against corporations . . .except when they are raised to serve a specific need for the public . . . and then collapsed.

By all means, only corporations kept under tight control -- that's it --

In fact, I'd like to see us raise a corporation to compete with GM which seems to be only working for the oil industry . . .

and to produced ELECTRIC CARS -- replacing every car on the roads in five years --

We could subsidize both ends of this -- manufacture and purchase --


One of the most outrageous things we have going on now with "smaller" government is that our government is now intimidated by corporate lawyers!!!!

Wake up, folks!!!!

[ProudDad]

204. Without "leftie" ideals, we ain't goin' nowhere

Someone has to keep the flame of progress burning even when those around are using every weapon against one...

Someone has to avoid being co-opted by the machine...

Someone has to be the one to say:

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcx9BJRadfw

This is one of those times...

[Yael]

225. Interesting commentary

I will need to read it again -- I am not sure if I am following all of your points -- but interesting none the less.

[iverglas]

231. as socialist as possible, under the circumstances

(From a contest by a Cdn news magazine to find a Cdn equivalent for "As American as apple pie"; the winner was "As Canadian as possible, under the circumstances".)


I'm a -8.5 to -9 on both axes of that graph.

Being a socialist, on this continent, means having a particular idea of what the ideal society would be. And working toward it. It really doesn't mean refusing to participate in the electoral system until it gets up to one's standards.

Social democracy / democratic socialism will presumably have to come first, if we set aside that revolution idea.

Functioning liberal democracy comes before that.

You work with what you have. Up here, I voted Liberal in the last provincial election, before the one we had the other day, because defeating our vicious right-wing Conservative government of the day was essential, and my riding is unpredictable, and I voted "strategically" to ensure a Conservative didn't win in a 3-way split.

This week, I voted New Democrat -- social democrat -- because there was no chance of a Conservative win, either provincially or in my riding.

There was no viable left-er candidate or party (and no, the Green Party, which did get 8% of the popular vote, is not left-er than much of anything here), so I voted as socialist as possible under the circumstances. Just as I did when I voted for the right-wing Liberal Party. (Yes, commie by US standards, but right-wing by ours.)

Much as I despise our Liberal Party, it would be false to say that it isn't a little bit different from the Conservative Party. Just as it would be false to say that the Democratic Party isn't different from the Republican Party. Close to identical as they may be, in both instances, in the big scheme of things.

Sometimes I don't give a crap which of the Liberals and Conservatives wins. Sometimes I do.

If there isn't much on the line -- if the differences are of no great significance -- then it is possible, in the circumstances, to vote more socialist. If there is much on the line, then it isn't.

In your next election, I think you've got yourselves one of those times when it isn't. Too much on the line not to at least take a flyer on the Democrats being better.

And too much on the line not just for yerselves, remember. You're voting as proxies for the rest of us, too.

Which is why I butt in (and agree with most of what you're said), even though I'm not really up on the fine points of the debate at DU. ;)



edited to add missing punctuation ...

[Sparkly]

243. Thanks for that post.

:hi:

[leftist_not_liberal]

245. Recommended and a quibble or two.

"Idealism is wonderful, unless it actually impedes real progress. Reality bites. It’s not nearly as emotionally rewarding as idealism, either, but it’s trump."

I see nothing valuable in idealism. Materialism is what it is all about if one is a commie. And yeah, it is not too realistic/materialistic to think it is time for revolution here and now.

Regarding differences between the parties, sure there are some significant differences. But those differences are slim indeed when it comes to real campaign and election finance reforms (disruptive to the multi-generational ruling class, ya know), and most especially when it comes to capitalist globalization.

I'll vote Dem, just like I did when I was a state convention delegate in the last election cycle, but I harbor no illusions about the Big Picture.

There IS a reason no one discusses economics with any frequency...

As for people who immediately start in with the Red Menace bullshit, you would do well to recall that in other countries where the beating black heart of the libertarian economic ideology is not located that socialists and communists are respected members of the halls of power. Here at home, there is a reason so few no what May Day is about even as this bit of American history is celebrated the world over.

Liberal activists struggle to win over people more the poorer those people are. This is not solely because those poor peoples' struggles keep them otherwise engaged and unavailable for politicking. Rather, it is for the same reason that the very poor in other countries protest the predations of our capitalist trade agreements and the like. It is because they can see through the elite, for-profit game that is what really describes the great bulk of politics in this nation.

[Sparkly]

247. Thanks.

I appreciate your post.

Can't there be ideals about the function of materialism, how the economic machinery works and how it all serves society?

"Harbor no illusions about the Big Picture" -- yup.

Do you think what you describe in your last paragraph is intentional, by design?

[leftist_not_liberal]

258. Heh

"Do you think what you describe in your last paragraph is intentional, by design?"

I am not smart enough to answer that. And as far as being a conspiracy theorist, I am really trying to give that up in favor of trafficking solely in the available facts.

[Sparkly]

264. Gotcha.

Thanks.

[bobbolink]

252. Depends on what you're calling "commie"

Political system or financial system?

[leftist_not_liberal]

261. I am speaking of materialism v. idealism

in the philosophical sense.

Platonic idealism is rooted in the machinations of a man's mind. Marxian materialism is rooted in the demonstrable facts on the ground.

In other words, the castle of ideas built by Plato and his intellectual progeny was built from the sky down.

Marxist political economy has as its roots the Labor Theory of Value, something so very accurate on its face that the Austrian-school 'alternatives' seem like so much mythology in comparison.

The ascendant economics today have had to discard the LTV, and with it Daviod Ricardo, Adam Smith and classical economics, instead reaching back into "classical liberalism" for the roots they tore asunder in their hurry to 'controvert' the menace of Marxist political economy.

Today we live under the yoke of the capitalist economists' fraud, which is nothing more in my opinion than the Mud Sill Theory wrought new and writ large -

"No country can sustain, in idleness, more than a small per centage of its numbers. The great majority must labor at something productive. From these premises the problem springs, "How can labor and education be the most satisfactory combined?" By the "mud-sill" theory it is assumed that labor and education are incompatible; and any practical combination of them impossible. According to that theory, a blind horse upon a tread-mill, is a perfect illustration of what a laborer should be -- all the better for being blind, that he could not tread out of place, or kick understandingly. According to that theory, the education of laborers, is not only useless, but pernicious, and dangerous. In fact, it is, in some sort, deemed a misfortune that laborers should have heads at all. Those same heads are regarded as explosive materials, only to be safely kept in damp places, as far as possible from that peculiar sort of fire which ignites them. A Yankee who could invent strong handed man without a head would receive the everlasting gratitude of the "mud-sill" advocates. But Free Labor says "no!" Free Labor argues that, as the Author of man makes every individual with one head and one pair of hands, it was probably intended that heads and hands should cooperate as friends; and that that particular head, should direct and control that particular pair of hands. As each man has one mouth to be fed, and one pair of hands to furnish food, it was probably intended that that particular pair of hands should feed that particular mouth -- that each head is the natural guardian, director, and protector of the hands and mouth inseparably connected with it; and that being so, every head should be cultivated, and improved, by whatever will add to its capacity for performing its charge. In one word Free Labor insists on universal education." - Address before the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society, Milwaukee, Wisconsin by Abraham Lincoln September 30, 1859 http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/fair.htm

Marx expounded on the Labor Theory of Value to show that according to the Labor Theory of Value (which was the theory of value that was used by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, etc) capitalists (owners of the means of production) exploit workers by depriving them of value that workers themselves create. According to Marx, profit is the difference between the value that the worker has created and the wage that the worker receives from his employer. Once Marx firmly established this principle, the Labor Theory of Value was criticized and abandoned by supporters of capitalism. Just more evidence for the falsity of the 'science' of economics...

Of course, this was beat to death when I posted some lengthly and relevant history to that effect, as you can see here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1989989

On edit, liberals who are given to quibbling over economics often point to the Keynesian branch of the field as indicative of a kinder, gentler capitalism. A note on that:

Even a superficial study of Capital would have shown Keynes that Marx’s theories, which he considered “illogical, obsolete, scientifically erroneous, and without interest or application to the modern world,”<7> led to conclusions often quite similar to those that constitute the “revolutionary” content of his own reasoning. He did not study Marx seriously because he identified Marx’s theories with those of the classicists. In a letter to G. B. Shaw, Keynes related that he “made another shot at old Karl Marx ... reading the Marx-Engels Correspondence,” but he still failed to discover anything “but out-of-date controversialzing.” He also told Shaw that he himself is “writing a book on economic theory which, will largely revolutionize – not at once but in the course of the next ten years – the way the world thinks about economic problems. There will be a great change, and, in particular, the Ricardian foundations of Marxism will be knocked away.”<8> By opposing the “classical theory,” Keynes thought he was opposing Marxism as well. <9> In reality, however, he dealt with neither of these theories, but struck at the neo-classical market theory which no longer had any significant connection with the ideas of Ricardo. Keynes preferred Gesell to Marx because he favored economic policies, particularly in the monetary and fiscal fields, which he thought capable of alleviating the economic ills of capitalism without altering its basic social structure. Marx, though dealing with monetary questions exhaustively, emphasized the extra-monetary aspects of the economy. In his view, money questions could be understood only in the light of the capitalist relations of production, which are relations “based on the class distinction between buyers and sellers of labor power. It is not money which by its nature creates this relation; it is rather the existence of this relation which permits of the transformation of a mere money-function into a capital function.” And only in this latter sense is it of contemporary interest. http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1969/marx-keynes/ch02.htm

[Tech 9]

277. He talking about

Marxist-Hegelian dialectical materialism and historical materialism. Its philosophy as much as it is economics or politics.

[Tech 9]

270. Haha

I see where you're going with the "idealism" comment but the term is not being used in the strict philosophical sense by anyone in this thread (I don't think). That is more along the lines of the Platonic Ideal which contrasts with materialism (ie everything is made of matter and, a new addition, energy)

Anyway, I think socialism is an ideal of humanity rising up to better its own conditions and to cast off the yoke of capitalism. Further, I don't think the important (non)distinction between the two parties has anything to do with campaigns or election financing or even globalization.

To the last, the these candidates are imperialists who speak from the perspective the perspective of, and in defence of, capital. You could quibble that Paul or Kucinich aren't imperialists in the strongest sense, but they have no real designs to dismantle the imperial center or even oppose its deprivations. But in fact Paul is, in theory, the worst of the lot (practically its hard to define "worst) because his entire campaign revolves around free market, private property invective (and what else is it but invective aimed towards those who are left out or stand to find themselves left out?).

Remember that profit is synonymous with surplus value and surplus value is extracted from laborers. The "wages" of labor you might say.

[Stinky The Clown]

267. I love you for many reasons ........

..... and 'Scary Smart' is right there among the top few reasons.

You said this SO well.

Sparkly speaks for me.

[Joey Liberal]

269. You are not being persecuted for being “left.”

Yes, we are.

[Sparkly]

304. Really?

DUers are criticizing you for your views on the role of government in serving the people? Did they say you have too much sympathy for workers, or that you should be more in support of oppression? Are they just worried you're going to wreck capitalism for everybody? What exactly do these persecutors say about being "left?"

[Hekate]

271. The voice of reason and sanity is by definition not a rant. Thank you, Sparkly for your input.

There are some here who speak so intemperately that I wonder if they realize just what they are asking for.

Al Gore said of his attempt to become president in the 2000 election (I'm paraphrasing from memory here) that the Supreme Court is the highest law in the land, and the alternative is armed revolution--which historically this country has only done once.

Armed insurrection would be put down quickly and very bloodily. As I have pointed out here before, the government has all the big guns -- and the Army, Marines, and Air Force too.

It is possible to foment a civil war by means of continued terrorist action by some of the citizenry -- such as was done in Beirut Lebanon, a peaceful and prosperous city that was leveled piecemeal a couple of decades ago. But that's not the scenario most have in mind, I think.

You are so right that raw emotion and passion are not a political plan.

Hekate

[Tech 9]

278. Can you give an example of

armed insurrection being put down very quickly on a national scale? Especially ones where the nations Army, Navy or Air Force were called in?

[Hekate]

353. To what exactly do you refer? I thought my statement was self-evident....

This nation has a tradition of peaceful transfer of power every 4 years, unlike banana republics and other dictatorships that rely on military juntas. Elections are a peaceful means of transfer of power, right? So is impeachment. The only other example I can think of offhand is uncontested royal succession.

Armed insurrection by its very definition involves the use of weaponry. Occasionally in American history there have been those who thought they could overthrow the government by force, but their numbers were small and they were unsupported by the rest of the population. That's pretty much how things are in this country -- the vast majority of citizens are not interested in violently disrupting their lives for politics. Disillusionment is not a sufficient cause for revolt. We don't even have a tradition of general strikes a la France.

When the South decided to secede from the rest of the States, their efforts were put down by -- what?

>crickets<

The US Army.
And it was very bloody.
And it was over a century and a half ago.

National governments do not allow themselves to be violently overthrown without a struggle.

Hekate

[Tech 9]

279. I'm pretty sure

to be a "socialist at heart" means you have to answer #3 in the affirmative. Points 4-7 are standard DU fare.

[Sparkly]

302. You aren't socialist unless you want a revolution right here right now?

Did I misunderstand what you meant?

[Tech 9]

313. You don't appear to want a revolution at all

Unless socialist-at-heart means socialists who don't talk or act like socialists and are torn between the Democratic Party and half-hearted socialist rhetoric*. Then you hit the nail on the head.

*said rhetoric being limited to "I'm a socialist-at-heart"

[Sparkly]

320. LOL

"who don't talk or act like socialists" -- How do Socialists talk and act, pray tell? :rofl:

I'm not torn at all.

What's your socialist rhetoric? Give me a sample!

And then let's storm the Bastille!

[Tech 9]

323. ..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2029490&mesg_id=2035352

[scarletwoman]

285. Your subject line should read: "From one self-proclaimed lefty to the other self-proclaimed lefties"

Because otherwise it sounds like you're claiming that your "leftiness" is simply an unassailable fact -- in contrast to "self-proclaimed" lefties.

Rant away however you wish, but at least be honest enough to recognize that you aren't any less of a "self-proclaimed" lefty than those to whom you're addressing your rant.

sw

[Sparkly]

300. Fair enough.

If I had it to do over again, I would make that change.

[scarletwoman]

306. I'm glad to know that. Do you see how it would have changed the whole tenor of your post?

I disagree with a number of your premises, but that's no big deal as far as I'm concerned. Cherishing our opinions is basically a default setting for all humans.

What I object to is dishonest arguments.

sw

[Sparkly]

309. Yup -- it wasn't a good choice of words.

I don't think it would have changed the whole tenor of my post, but it wasn't the best subject line.

I don't like dishonest arguments, either. That's much of my point.

[scarletwoman]

315. Well, I see your point as being: "vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter what".

But you dragged in all this "leftist as they come" stuff to try to give some sort of extra legitmacy to your point. What's dishonest is that "vote for the Democrat no matter what" is not in itself a "lefty" point at all. Any number of "self-proclaimed" moderates and centrists and DLCers say the very same thing.

What you are really saying is that you think that "lefties" should adopt the same political position as "moderates" and "centrists", because it's "practical".

That's what I mean by an honest argument.

sw

[Sparkly]

317. No, I'm saying one CAN hold leftist views AND vote for the Democratic nominee.

It's not about legitimacy to the point -- it IS the point.

No, voting for Democrats is not a "lefty point" (whatever that means). Yes, moderates and centrists and liberals and others all vote for Democrats, too.

What I am saying is that it makes sense to ME to vote for Democrats (not to "adopt the same political position as moderates" etc.) BECAUSE I think it's the best means of advancing what I believe in. PERIOD.

(Clearly a very, very radical thing to say on Democratic Underground!)

Here's a dishonest argument: "If you vote for Democrats, you don't hold leftist views. If you hold leftist views, you won't vote for Democrats."

[bpeale]

288. point 7: bully for you. i'm not

[anaxarchos]

289. You could have said it a lot easier...

Politics is practical as you say. Practically, speaking, the point of your OP is #7: "7. I am voting for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is." Everything else is explanation, justification, and an invitation for others to do the same. The only thing new is the simultaneous claim that you are "as left as they come."

No, you're not.

People who vote for the "Democratic nominee, no matter who it is" are not "as left as they come". They are not very "left" at all. The act of cutting off half of the spectrum by calling it "loony" kinda reinforces that obvious fact. That you may be "left in your heart" also counts about as much as if you thought you were Elmer Fudd in your brain.

You're going to vote for Hillary, no matter what?

OK, you can certainly do that.

[Sparkly]

296. This gets to the point: "No you're not."

To me, "leftist" is about political philosophy. I stated that first. What is it to you?

You said: People who vote for the "Democratic nominee, no matter who it is" are not "as left as they come". They are not very "left" at all.

That is EXACTLY the idea that I am refuting in my post. It is simply NOT true that holding leftist views and voting for Democrats are mutually exclusive. I think you are confused about beliefs and one's decisions about what to DO with those beliefs.

[anaxarchos]

305. Is that so?

Well, I suppose I could take my leftist "beliefs", stick them in my ear, and light them. Then I would be free to vote for the "Democratic nominee, no matter who it is". Actually, then I would be free to vote for the Republican nominee or anyone else for that matter. I could vote for whoever paid me the most and I could still be "as left as they come". I could cross picket lines without being a scab. I could do just as I please without worrying about it.

I feel better already. You are right, I must have been confused.

Sarcasm not withstanding, you have a logical choice: either it is a practical matter and as a practical matter you are not a leftist, whatever your "personal belief" may be, OR it is not a practical matter but one of "belief" translated into action, in which case...

[Sparkly]

308. Huh?

What are you talking about? You ARE free to do as you please. :shrug:

I do what I think is most effective toward the goals I want to achieve. And you?

What's "being leftist as a practical matter," exactly?

[scarletwoman]

310. Why can't you understand? It's INTENTIONS that count, not actions!

You must be a "self-proclaimed lefty"! Why do you hate puppies?

sw

[Sparkly]

318. No, beliefs and choices of action are separate things.

Is this hard to understand?

[scarletwoman]

322. So, the means don't define the ends? Do tell.

[Sparkly]

330. Means and ends?

What? :shrug:

[scarletwoman]

337. If your "ends" (the goals you wish to achieve) are antiwar, anti-corporatist, & anti-imperialist,

etc. then you cannot expect to achieve those ends by the means of supporting and acquiescing to the status quo.

sw

[Sparkly]

338. How do you achieve them?

I don't "expect" I can radically change the country.

Do you?

If so, how?

Is it working?

How do you measure that it's working?

[scarletwoman]

341. Well, I certainly don't expect to effect change by acquiescing to the status quo.

I can't tell you if NOT acquiescing to the status quo is "working", because that's not what's happening.

All I can tell you is that acquiescing to the status quo cannot, by definition, effect change. That's just elementary logic.

sw

[Sparkly]

343. How DO you expect to effect change?

You're telling me what won't work; so what will? What does? What has?

[scarletwoman]

350. Non-cooperation. Non-acquiescence. Building a movement from the ground up.

Worry about Congressional elections, quit obsessing over the presidency. We might actually be better off in the long term if some idiotic republican got elected president, as long as he was hemmed in at every turn by a Democratic Congress. But we won't get that kind of hard-fighting Congress unless we keep pushing on them and pushing on them hard.

Our odds are alot better in terms of local races and our Congressional delegations, that's where we should concentrate our energies.

Realize that no matter who ends up president, it's ONLY going to be someone who has met the approval of the powers-that-be that are working AGAINST us.

I mean, fuck NO, I'm NOT going to vote for someone who Rupert Murdoch throws fundraisers for! I don't care WHAT initial she puts behind her name. She is not on MY side, she works for the Big Guys; the DC/MIC/National Security State/corporate globalists.

I will NOT vote for what I do not want!

sw

[scarletwoman]

325. Actually, it's completely impossible for me to understand.

If your actions aren't informed by your beliefs, then what meaning can there possibly be to your beliefs?

sw

[Sparkly]

331. Absolutely your actions are informed by your beliefs!!!

But not everyone who holds the same belief takes the same action!!!

Man...

[Desertrose]

290. You can only define what left means to you....

I seriously doubt you are as "left as they come". No proof needed other than reading your posts in this thread.

This is more than a rant, IMHO. A rant is about how you feel and not telling people about how they should feel. Again only MHO.

All your points are basically about how if we are "really left",we should vote Dem.

Sorry....just can't agree with that. If you change the "left" to "Dem",it might make more sense.

...and I don't see how idealism could ever impede "real progress". How would we ever get "real progress" without ideals?

I see your whole post simply as an exercise in defining words...if someone doesn't agree with your definitions then they are told they are wrong.

What is lefty...and left of WHAT? and what is a "lefty" vs. "self proclaimed lefty? How do you judge whether another is "self-proclaimed" or a "real lefty"?


Ideals and Conscience...don't have the time to even begin this one....


Of course Reality is important...but who gets to define it? Reality- yours or mine??


You may always vote for a Dem with no apology,yet you won't recognize anyone else NOT always voting dem with no apologies.


Quite an interesting thread.....but I tend to agree with Lerkfish, TC and the others who feel that it may be time for those left of "left" to give up on this moderate board.

DR


FWIW...it was NEVER like this when DU began.I was here in the first weeks of 2001 and this place is dramatically different now. Not nearly as "left" now and actually, the more left leaning of us maybe not persecuted, but certainly no longer feel particularly welcome.

[Sparkly]

292. What does it mean to you?

I seriously doubt MANY people who claim to be "proud lefties" really are that -- because they do not discuss political philosophy. They seem to discuss their feelings, primarily.

I didn't tell you how to feel. I didn't tell you how to vote. I simply wrote what I think, and why I vote for Democrats. Because it's really silly to me that so many people who claim to be "lefties" see that and voting for Democrats as mutually exclusive. They aren't.

I also didn't say anybody was "wrong" in their definitions of anything. What is a "lefty" to you?

I think there are some basic realities we can agree upon: the structures of our government, the fact that the country runs on capitalism, the fact that a majority of Americans do not agree with us, for example.

"You won't recognize anyone else NOT always voting dem with no apologies." I recognize them. It's your choice how you vote, obviously. Is it a problem for you that I disagree?

Finally, you tossed out "left of 'left'" -- how do YOU define that? Is it about political philosophy? Or could it be that you, in fact, have a view of "leftism" that's really akin to "intolerance?" Just a thought.

What makes a political philosophy "moderate?" And what makes a political philosophy "left?" Or is all of this, in fact, not a matter of political philosophy at all?? It seems leftist political ideology is the one thing, in discussing what's "left," that's left out of the discussion entirely. Interesting indeed.

[Desertrose]

352. Left of left? If you are "left"...then I am way left of you.

Thats how I define it.

[Sparkly]

355. In other words, you have no clue what you're talking about.

You have no idea what "leftist" means.

If I'm wrong, and you do, do tell.

[scarletwoman]

357. You'd better be looking in a mirror when you say that.

The very idea that you would accuse Desertrose -- whom I have known here since 2001 -- of not knowing what "leftist" means is so fucking absurd it leaves me speechless.

But, hey, it's your thread. Do your thing.

[Desertrose]

360. Hope your prayer wheel keeps turnin', sw

The way things are going around here.....

:hug:

This whole thread is...well...you said it actually....fucking absurd.

:loveya:
DR

[Sparkly]

373. Oh! Horrors!!!

Mercy, bring me my smelling salts!!!

[Desertrose]

359. Well now, see, here's the thing Sparkly.

If you are not out to start flame wars and insult people, then maybe you should rethink your attitude.

When someone tells me I have to prove something to them, it just makes me get all stubborn and well, kinda annoyed.


Now this whole thread is pretty ridiculous. Everyone arguing over what being leftist means...and what you don't seem to get is that we ALL HAVE OUR OWN DEFINITIONS and even more than that honey, NONE OF US ARE GONNA AGREE ON WHAT THESE DEFINITIONS ARE.

So it would appear that it is fine & dandy for you to disagree with me, but I am not supposed to disagree- or even question you?

...and yes,I know what leftist means....but I'm not playing your pointless game.

[Sparkly]

371. You don't have to prove anything -- although you already did.

You seem to think "Left" is a degree of pissed-offedness about the "status quo;" a degree of fed-upness and intolerance of compromise, and basically, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it any more!"

Now, I have absolutely no problem with people feeling that way. It's understandable. Here's my problem: it has absolutely nothing to do with the term "left" as a political philosophy.

There are indeed (as I said in my OP) a range of definitions of "left," but you haven't even addressed that. Instead, it's meaningless "I'm left and you're not" taunts. The only conclusion I can draw is that you really, honestly don't understand.

Imagine if we all started using "our own definitions" of other words, unrelated to anything historically known and documented about those words.

Finally, I'm not really concerned about your being annoyed. I'm not here to start flame wars and insult you (I think you might look at what you've said to and about me, though) -- but if in the process of identifying this confusion with the word "left" around here, and stating what I think, you get annoyed -- it's really okay.

[Desertrose]

379. OMG..put words in people's mouth's much?

"You seem to think Left" is a degree of pissed-offedness about the "status quo;" etc etc etc"

No, these are YOUR words, not mine.



"Now, I have absolutely no problem with people feeling that way."

But clearly, you do. Proven by just about every post to those who disagree with you.



"Instead, it's meaningless "I'm left and you're not" taunts. The only conclusion I can draw is that you really, honestly don't understand."

Not a "taunt". A statement....if you are left, then I am farther left. Simple enough....and feel free to continue drawing your own conclusions...as will I.



"Finally, I'm not really concerned about your being annoyed. I'm not here to start flame wars and insult you (I think you might look at what you've said to and about me, though)

:eyes:of course telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about etc is not an insult. Of course not.

-- but if in the process of identifying this confusion with the word "left" around here, and stating what I think, you get annoyed -- it's really okay."

Oh, really? It's OK? Doesn't seem like it, but whatever.:)


(As to the bolded statement above re: identifying the confusion about the word left- looks to me as though you have tried pretty hard to move that word in the other direction. But hey, thats just me drawing my own conclusions.:shrug:)


DR

[Sparkly]

381. Nope, just stating my impressions.

I stand by all that I said.

[scarletwoman]

293. DR!!!! Whoot!!!! Fascinating, isn't it? Proclaiming oneself as "left as they come" at the same

time as lecturing "self-proclaimed" leftists about being too "loony".

It makes my poor head explode.

sw
:loveya:

[Sparkly]

298. I didn't lecture leftists about being "too loony."

What does your poor head tell YOU "leftist" means?

[Desertrose]

348. Hey scarlet-sister....

:hi::hug:

This is the wordiest damn thread with absolutely no substance, isn't it?

Talk about circles within circles going nowhere.....

Like I am gonna sit here & define every word I type??? I don't think so. :rofl:
Like anyone cares about my definition anyway...especially if I don't agree with the OP's.

Good to see ya...nice to find a few kindred spirits left on this place.:)

:loveya:
DR

[scarletwoman]

351. I actually intend to stay until I get thrown out. Not going down without a fight.

:D

So glad to see you still around!

:loveya: :hug: :loveya:
sw

[Desertrose]

358. Ditto! My sentiments as well.

How long have we been here anyway...seems like since the dawn of time sometimes, I swear.:7


Always nice to see you,too :loveya:

:loveya: :hug:
DR

[MedleyMisty]

295. You know, I looked at the current threads on GD

and I thought, "We really really need another thread lecturing people for their opinions. Just can't have enough of those."

[Sparkly]

299. Not a lecture -- just an opinion.

It's still okay to post those, even if they upset people, isn't it?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

311. Why I'm out on the left edge

The first crack in the facade came back in the late 1970s, when I worked part-time in a library collection that concerned the Third World. Not many people used this collection, so I had plenty of time to read. What I read was shocking--the history of U.S. interference in and exploitation of other countries, all in the name of democracy.

Reagan's two terms were one shock after another: the invasion of Grenada, the anti-union stuff, the subversion of an internationally recognized government (Nicaragua) while playing palsy-walsy with brutal dictators (Pinochet, the Argentine generals, the Salvadoran generals, Saddam Hussein--yes!--and the Afghan rebels, who were mostly upset about their homegrown Marxists trying to drag them into the modern world), the whole Iran-Contra affair. From 1981 to 1984, I lived through the Reagan recession and was able to find only part-time, temporary work. This made me aware of the plight of the working poor as nothing else could have.

When I moved to Oregon, I was active in the anti-intervention movement, but when I moved to a new town, the county party was dominated by DLCers who thought the Contras were noble fighters against the Red menace, and I was frozen out of the organization.

I was never enthusiastic about either Clinton or Gore, and I feel sorry for people who think they're as good as it gets. I was just glad to be rid of the Republicans. Too bad that Clinton seemed to be more interested in placating the Republicans than in making the bold moves that were needed to undo the Reagan revolution.

I was so disillusioned that I voted for Nader in 1996.

I came close to voting for Nader in 2000, because Clinton hadn't improved any, and I was angry at Gore for agreeing with Bush so much, but I ended up voting for Gore only because Bush was too scary.

I joined DU in about February or March of 2001, and Desertrose (farther up this thread) is right. I don't care what the administrators say: the tone here was much different than it is now. There were no tag teams of people who gang up on leftists while arguing in the same question-deflecting mode as right-wingers.

I campaigned for Kucinich in 2004, happy to support a candidate who actually said aloud the things I'd been thinking for 24 years. When he didn't get the nomination, I swallowed my disappointment and went door to door for Kerry, even though I was underwhelmed by him.

I was so angry to hear him concede before all the votes were counted, especially since I'd been out pounding the pavement from 10AM to 8PM. along with 10,000 other volunteers, many of them Greens and other leftists, in the Twin Cities alone. We kept Minnesota blue, but I felt that we'd fought harder than the candidate.

I was glad when the Dems retook the Senate and Congress, but I'm furious that they're going along with so many of Bush's initiatives. What good is an opposition party that doesn't oppose?

There are a lot of people touting Hillary as if she's inevitable, and wishing for Gore as if he were the Messiah.

Sorry, but both of them strike me as being Tony Blair types.

You remember Tony Blair, the man who had the opportunity to undo everything Margaret Thatcher did to the UK but instead kept almost all her "reforms" intact AND joined in an illegal war.

That's where we are now. I'm trying to think of aspects of the Reagan revolution that the Dems have undone, and I can't think of any. More often, a lot of them are going around trying to prove how similar they are to the Republicans. That's pathetic.

All the top-tier candidates are status quo types. Oh, they'll tinker around the edges a bit, but they won't even propose substantive changes in the way our society is structured. It's only the "minor, fringe" candidates, the ones the corporate media don't approve of, who dare to say that we need to get out of Iraq sooner rather than later, that we need to get the insurance companies out of health care, and that the military needs to be scaled back rather than expanded.

I'm a socio-economic leftist, not a behavioral one. While I'm for gay rights and choice on the abortion issue, they aren't my prime issues or my principal reason for being left.

Like the ancient Jewish prophets, I see injustice everywhere I look, much of it being perpetrated by our government. Things have gotten so bad that bandaids won't be enough. We need to rein in the corporations and the military, and place primary emphasis on the common good, not shareholders' profits.

I can't see any of the alleged "top-tier" candidates being capable of this.

[Bonobo]

314. Lydia, I just wanted to voice my complete support for what you said here.

Thank you for that excellent, excellent post. It was SO well said and it really resonated with me.

doujou suru. doujou suru.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

326. Maa, sonna!

Sou iwarete wa ...

[scarletwoman]

319. Awesome, Lydia! Damn, you're good!

:toast:

sw

[Lydia Leftcoast]

327. Thanks. It's my Minnesota DFL heritage coming through

:hi:

The only state ever to elect an essentially socialist governor!(Floyd B. Olson in the 1930s)

[Sparkly]

328. I agree with almost all you've said.

But to me, the reason the candidates aren't "capable of this" is largely because the PEOPLE aren't there.

Thus, as I said, the ground level is more fertile ground than the top tier of anything, especially political candidates. No, none of them are going to radically restructure government or change the structure of society -- it's just not going to happen. Why look to them to make it happen? By the time a candidate is on the trail, it's years in the making and they're miles too high to affect. That's not where major change will happen.

It is, however, where some progress can happen -- however small it may seem -- and it's absolutely the way to keep the GOP from destroying it all.

If there's a better solution, what is it?

[ProudDad]

334. Keep the DLC from destroying it all, too... ABH (n/t)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

336. I don't see anyone ASKING the people

Instead, the corporate media are out there 24/7 TELLING the people what they're supposed to want, which is more consumer goods and more celebrity trivia, with a good measure of sensationalized "reality" programming thrown in.

Even so, if you just talk to anyone who's not a complete Bushbot, you find that they're uneasy about the direction that the country is going and are hungry for someone who will offer a solution or two.

Politicians need to fire all their Beltway consultants and get out among ordinary people themselves. They need to find out what's going on in ordinary people's lives and then figure out what can be done about their problems.

On the matter of support...

The Republicans were able to rally THEIR supporters, especially during the Reagan administration. When Reagan wanted to do something, he went on TV and asked people to call their Congresscritters, and enough of them did to get whatever bill it was passed. When Oliver North was testifying before the Iran-Contra committee, the Republicans again rallied their supporters to send telegrams in support of him.

I've never seen the Dems do anything like this.

Just as an example, I bet a Dem president could take a half hour to go on TV, set out a single-payer health care plan in simple terms, contrasting it with the current mess, and then ask viewers to pressure their Congresscritters. At least as many people are fed up with the health care non-system as were eager for Reagan's tax cuts in 1986.

[Sparkly]

339. So how are you getting politicians to do those things they need to do?

I agree that Democrats do NOT rally to Democratic politicians the way Republicans rally to Republican politicians. I'm not sure that's because Republicans are superior politicians.

I've said basically the same thing about healthcare. I don't understand the disagreement with taking insurance companies out of the equation. I've asked this in GD-Pol many times, and the closest thing I got to an answer is that it has to be done in steps. :shrug:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

340. Keep the heat on them

Don't let them get away with, "At least I'm not a Republican."

In my opinion, if it looks like a duck...well, you know the rest.

[Sparkly]

342. 5% of the population don't generate a lot of heat.

I think that only goes so far.

And, I don't think it's worked.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

344. Yeah, but it's the best we can do

And I think public pressure can work in some cases.

After 30,000 people in Portland marched against invading Iraq, all the Dem Congresscritters from Oregon voted "no" on the IWR, and I think that at least two of them might have gone the other way without that pressure.

[Sparkly]

346. I think public pressure works best when it's a significant public.

That's my point -- I think power is built upwards. A few people expressing anger at those at the very top isn't the most effective thing.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

347. I bet you'd find that the Republican pressure groups aren't all that large

They're just more vocal and consistent.

[Sparkly]

349. Which groups?

There are small groups that control huge amounts of money and influence; also "thinktank" organizations and PACs and backward groups with apple-pie sounding names...

Some wield influence through ideas (religion, "family values," tradition, fear of terrorists, etc.) which nonetheless takes money.

Some are just political lynchmobs, like the "Arkansas Project" and the Swiftboat liars. Still very well-funded.

There is more consistency though, in their party as a whole. Not a whole lot of hair-splitting there, seems to me. (Maybe not enough mental exercise to stimulate divisions?)

[Breeze54]

356. And people constantly saying demontrations don't work and

criticizing the dissenters doesn't help either! Seems pretty self-defeating, imho.

Why go after the dissenters, instead of the criminals? :shrug: Makes ZERO sense to me!

Quite frankly, who do you think helped raise public awareness about the lies of the Iraq Invasion?

If you think it was the MSM, you are living in LaLaLand!

Protests against the Iraq War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War">From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There have been considerable protests against the Iraq War in the buildup to and following the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Between 2002 and 2005, protests were held in many cities worldwide, often coordinated to occur simultaneously around the world. After the biggest series of demonstrations, on February 15, 2003, New York Times writer Patrick Tyler claimed that they showed that there were two superpowers on the planet, the United States and worldwide public opinion.<1>

These demonstrations against the war were mainly organized by anti-war organizations, many of whom had been formed in opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan. In some Arab countries demonstrations were organized by the State. Europe saw the biggest mobilization of protesters, including a rally of 3 million people in Rome, which is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally.<2>

According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.<3>

Pro-war demonstrators have been quoted as referring to anti-war protests as a "vocal minority."<4>

However, Gallup Polls updated September 14, 2007 state, "Since the summer of 2005, opponents of the war have tended to outnumber supporters. A majority of Americans believe the war was a mistake."<5>

So your premise that the "out spoken", screaming at the opponents doesn't work, is flat out.... wrong!

Stop the War in Vietnam! (DC)
http://allenginsbergdvd.com/myPictures/Washington+monument+pentagon+wash+1967.jpg

Stop the Iraq War! (Paris)


Stop the Iraq War! (Toronto)


Stop the Iraq War! (Washington, DC 09/24/05)


www.topia.net/peace.html

[Sparkly]

374. I don't know who said that.

Are you writing that post to me, or just putting it out there in general?

[Breeze54]

329. Well stated!

You are right on the money!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

382. Thank you!

You're making some good points, too. :thumbsup:

[ProudDad]

332. This'll make 5 of us

SO many of us have had to go through that tortuous route.

Mine started when the (empty) promise of Kennedy I was cut short and Johnson stabbed us all in the back with Vietnam.

Then Kennedy II (the real one) is murdered and we got...

nixon...god, nixon...

Etc...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

383. Yes, I didn't realize it at the time, being a naive high school student

but the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy coming so close together in 1968 really took the stuffing out of the Left.

When I look back at the '60s, what I miss most is the sense of hope and possibility instead of constant naysaying and calls for "practicality."

[Desertrose]

385. I was in college at the time of MLK & RFK

and I still remember how absolutely shocked to our core we all were at MLK and then so soon after that, RFK.


Yeah, I miss the unbridled hope and sense of joy from that time....None of us were really "practical"...and thankgoddess we weren't. I wonder if we'd still be in VietNam if we weren't so idealistic and believed we could actually, by our own hearts, change things.

Yeah, I do miss that.
(That and my 20 year old body * sigh*)

:hug:
DR

[ProudDad]

394. The 60s, which started with such promise

ended for me on election night in 1968 during our downtown anti-Vietnam-war rally, the one we'd been holding every Friday and Saturday throughout the summer and fall. Right after the networks declared nixon the "winner", 250 San Mateo County Sheriff's Deputies showed up on the streets of Palo Alto and started beating us up...

Their 'guy' was in now...

Their 'guy' has been in consistently ever since...

[charlie]

354. Ever-dependable Lydia

The right words to speak my feelings. Thank you! :hi:

[Desertrose]

361. Excellent post, Lydia

ICAM :)

:loveya:
DR

[ShortnFiery]

365. Yes!

Lydia Leftcoast :yourock: :thumbsup:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

312. for just #4 alone I would recommend your post.

:applause:

[DinahMoeHum]

362. We want the pendulum to swing back to the left, correct ?

Well, you don't reach the left from the right until you reach in-between, that is, the center.
And we need to work for the pendulum to get to the center before it can get to the left.

:shrug:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

380. Some problems with that approach:

1. The Republicans didn't move gradually through the center to reach the right. They went at it full bore the moment Reagan got into office in 1981. By 1983, the air traffic controllers' union had been broken, all federal student aid except ROTC and a few tiny Pell Grants had been converted to loans with the lowest-interest loans (NDSL at 2%) being eliminated, Grenada had been invaded, and the military build-up was well underway, as was deregulation.

2. One of the most important principles of negotiating techniques is always to start by asking for more than you realistically think you can get, not by what you think the other party will accept, because the other party will almost always try to bargain you down. No matter what mild-mannered ideas the Dems propose, the Republicanite media machine treats it as if it were Stalinism.

For example, if "A" is the Dems' ideal position and "Z" is the Republicans' ideal position on an issue, it makes no sense to start by asking for "L," because that's a sign of weakness, and the Republicanites know it. In the ensuing negotiations, the compromise position is likely to be "T," close enough that the Republicanites are very happy but far right enough that people who are expecting the Dems to actually DO SOMETHING about that particular issue are miserable and angry.

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

Now suppose the Dems insist on "A" from the very beginning. The Republicanites will moan and groan about the same as they would for a mild-mannered proposal, but in the final decision, you're likely to end up with "G," which will make the Dems happy for a change and actually go some distance towards solving the problem.

3. The Dems may not have enough votes to pass all their dream legislation, but they certainly have enough votes to BLOCK Bush's initiatives, that is, if the party leadership can whip the DINOs into shape. They should have blocked FISA, they should have blocked the ridiculous resolution against Move On,* and they should have blocked the Kyl-Liebermann atrocity. If they can't even do that, what good are they?

4. It's a matter of historical fact that the Dems in the past 27 years have not only failed to block moves to the right, they have also AIDED AND ABETTED the Republicans' push to the right, beginning with the formation of the DLC in the 1980s. They supported Reagan's military buildup, the interventions in Central America, the tax cuts, union busting, and deregulation. In the 1990s, they pushed for the passage of NAFTA and welfare "reform." (And Al Gore was a founding member of the DLC, which is why I don't see him as some sort of Messiah figure to save us from the Republicans.)

If you're in a car that is headed toward the edge of a cliff at 60mph, you may breathe a sigh of relief if someone grabs the wheel and slows it down to 30mph (as most of the top-tier Dem candidates would), but you're still headed for the edge of that cliff and will meet your doom unless someone else grabs the steering wheel and jerks it away from the cliff. That's what we need, but I'm not holding my breath.

[ProudDad]

396. Pendulum is a bad metaphor

The "pendulum" has been swinging to the right since 1968 -- without serious deviation...under Dem and Puke administrations...

We need a revolution to put a different system in place...

[Patriot Abroad]

363. And it really peeves me how power tools are always designed for Righties . ..

Oh, wait, you mean a political Leftie . . . Never Mind

[bluescribbler]

367. A breath of fresh air

Thanks for this post. Now, let's work together to get the best Democrat nominated and elected.

[tom_paine]

368. Nicely said. K & R.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[ironrooster]

369. to enable or destroy?

I've been a member for awhile now - but do more lurking than posting as is evident by my post count.
I suppose that is b/c I'm cynical about the prospects for moving the country leftward. I make the argument to my affluent relations that a capitalistic system is healthiest with a healthy dose of well run socialism. (I do call a socialistic program a socialistic program and avoid the mamby-pamby language)
After all, "social" security has run pretty well for years and would continue to do so - if not for the raiding of funds.

The affluent upper middle (professionals such as Doctor/lawyers/small time financial advisors/CPA's etc.) what we used to call the "petite bourgeoisie", have to experience supreme discomfort before any real changes. That means an economic collapse no less. That means their equities/mutual funds/real estate need to tank severely across the board. What happens next is the elites will have to impose rationing & then it will get ugly.


(History is not dead) as many so-called intellectuals on the right have proclaimed - and political history is violent upheaval first - then a period of consolidation of power and apparatus by a ruling elite (be they capitalists or socialists) and then, if not peace - then at least stability for awhile. Rinse - Repeat - Rinse.

That said, I will vote for any Democrat who wins the primary - but will likely still obtain passports for my family - b/c I believe we are 2 - 4 years from chaos. I used to work for an older fellow who was an old-time FDR Democrat. I was talking to him about the newest Bush outrage and he said he had been building a house in an extremely rural area. He indicated that he felt there had been a coup of sorts that was a 'done deal' and he said to me "...That shit used to matter to me - but I'm just trying to save my ass now."

[Sparkly]

377. chaos

Are you thinking of that chaos as the result of the economic collapse you described?

I agree that our economy is in a very risky place, and it's easily invisible to people. BushCo can just keep saying everything's great. Once the dollar becomes irrelevant, I think it begins. And, if another country (like China) wanted to screw us, they wouldn't have to drop bombs -- they'd only have to call in the debts and screw with our economy. We're out on such a limb now.

The other part is the "privatization" (opposite of "socialized" being "privatized," in my opinion). Once the country starts privatizing its military, it's a VERY bad and dangerous sign, to me, and that's what's been done now. A few more years of fear, screwing with the judicial system, and riding roughshod over the Constitution, and we could see the end of the American "experiment." That's why I think it's so important to keep Republicans OUT of office.

[ironrooster]

384. economic chaos

Absolutely.

Of course I also agree we have to keep r's out of office. My cynicism is from seeing that we probably lack the means to peacefully intercede to stop what is happening. How many people do you know have any inkling of alternate economic theory aside from the 'greed is good' BS we are fed by the MSM.

My fear is that when chaos does come & there is an opportunity for change, that we could as easily find ourselves under a socialist police state as a fascist/corporatist. I mean look at who are the super "capitalists" in Russia today... (people whose families were formerly were well connected to the communist party or the enforcement apparatus). Same damn people - different economy. I don't believe that Capitalism and Socialism are intrinsically bad or good - I'm not an absolutist in that sense. The problem is that well connected groups always co-opt the existing system whatever it is.

So until we can devise a (fool proof) way to keep any one group from amassing that kind of clout it's going to be the same old shit over and over. One thing that helps keep an oligarchy from accumulating that kind of power is an empowered electorate (read educated). Take a look around at the 'youth of america'. What a joke. At least my high school age kids read the newspaper & are able to speak intelligently about current events. They are in the minority amongst their peers and find it hard to socialize with like minded youth. Really, when you see your children on their way to being fully engaged citizens, you also start to see in them the beginnings of a kind of contemptuousness for their peers who only want to discuss the next itune. So at some level, it is axiomatic that the smarter/ and or more ambitious people will eventually run the affairs of the less smart/or engaged. I don't encourage this kind of attitude and try to tell my kids that the other kids probably don't have parents as educated/ and or civically minded. Blah-blah-blah. I mean what do you tell your kids? Do I tell them that their friends uninvolved parents ARE THE REASON we are in this fucking mess?

What will it take to shake the scales from the eyes?

I think the vast majority of people (I counted myself among them at one time), still think that at some level people enter into politics at least initially to represent their constituents. What they failed to realize is that the "constituents" weren't them.

Yes, I vote Democratic to stave off the inevitable - but I'm not fooling myself.

[ProudDad]

395. "Are you prepared for a revolution against the U.S. war machine?"

No, don't need to.

We need a revolution against the U.S. consuming machine.

The country (and its war machine) are propped up by people over-consuming, buying shit they don't need with money they don't have.

A small percentage of the population could bring down that house of cards in a year...