Are you an Action Liberal or a Movement Liberal?

[Skinner]

I just read an interesting http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/books/review/Alter-t.html">survey of liberal books by Jonathan Alter on the New York Times website. In the article, he makes reference to "a tactical split within liberalism itself," between two groups of people he calls "action liberals" and "movement liberals."

Think of it as a distinction between "action liberals" and "movement liberals." Action liberals are policy-oriented pragmatists who use their heads to get something important done, even if their arid deal-making and Big Money connections often turn off the base. Movement liberals can sometimes specialize in logical arguments (e.g., Garry Wills), but they are more often dreamy idealists whose hearts and moral imagination can power the deepest social change (notably the women's movement and the civil rights movement).

Not everyone will be completely satisfied with this distinction, as it is not entirely flattering to either side. Especially given the fact that Alter clearly identifies with one side, and his perspective colors the way he describes the split. (You can read the article for more info.)

Nonetheless, this distinction between "action liberals" and "movement liberals" resonated with me, as this appears to be the "divide" that we see here on Democratic Underground every day (particularly when we discuss the Obama Administration). I especially appreciate the fact that he described the split as "tactical" rather than ideological or values-based. It seems obvious to me from reading DU that we all share the same core values, even if we disagree on how to achieve our shared goals.

Anyway, I was interested to find out what percentage of DUers would identify with either side.

Based on Alter's description in the article, do you think you are more of an "action liberal" or a "movement liberal"?

[madinmaryland]

1. This should be interesting!

:popcorn:

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Definitely movement liberal

I was drawn to the civil rights movement as a child and am still angry that the ERA never passed. LOL

[blondeatlast]

3. Othere: both. Mostly "action" but a couple of movements strongly inspire me

and I find it very difficult to compromise on them even if it interferes with my "aaction" status.

[Pirate Smile]

125. I heard Alter describe it as a spectrum where most people have some of both but generally may

lean more strongly one way or the other.

[Pirate Smile]

126. Dupe

[applegrove]

393. I'm with you.

[Odin2005]

4. I think the "split" is nonsense.

"Action Liberals" sounds like a flattering way of describing the pro-corporate DLC suck-ups.

[Skinner]

5. I think your response proves that the split exists.

And posts like yours serve to drive a wedge between both groups.

[boston bean]

16. There probably wouldn't be any wedge to drive if action liberals

achieved far great liberal policy. I don't see ever DLCer as the devil incarnate, but if I gotta throw my eggs into a basket as to which side actually or mostly achieves liberal policy, I guess I'm a movement liberal. The women's movement and Civil rights movement are nothing to be scoffed at. And yet action liberals still look down their nose at movement liberals, it is evidenced by the labels they use. Action liberals call movement liberals idealists and purists, dreamers, fringe. So, the insults cut both ways. If we look at what those idealist and purists (ie movement liberals)have achieved, one wonders why more liberals wouldn't want to be a movement liberal.

There is a wedge, and it's seen in an ideological light by movement liberals. It is not seen as an ideology difference by action liberals. They see it as strategy difference. It's easy to say I believe in those liberal policy and then only incrementally or waterdown liberal policy. It's not so simple for a movement liberal to do that.

So there is a wedge, and it's there for a reason, and it's not a bad reason.

[nc4bo]

26. It's already happening within this very thread

unfortunately. Just read some of the comments :S

Sure didn't take long before we're all right back at it again, did it?

....sigh.

[Posteritatis]

28. This sort of sounds like "there wouldn't be a wedge if the other side didn't exist." (nt)

[boston bean]

30. Well, wouldn't that always be the case, but that isn't what I said or implied.

[TheWraith]

32. The problem with these definitions is that people want to immediately redefine them.

In order to put all successes into the category they view themselves as, and anything they see as negative into the "other" category. Somebody downthread talked about Martin Luther King Jr, without any regard for the fact that he was viewed by a great many people as a sellout for the fact that he wanted to work with whites, and wanted to reform the system rather than abolish it.

The person downthread also mentioned Mandela, without noting that Mandela spent over a decade negotiating with the South African government that officially viewed him as less than a person, and the fact that after being elected he went out of his way to reassure and placate white citizens. If he were to do that today, he'd be bashed around DU the way Obama is or anyone who tries to proceed with diplomacy, and called weak or a secret right winger.

Action for action's sake is pointless, and philosophy without action is meaningless. Trying to argue one way is "right" and the other way should be ignored is even more so.

[boston bean]

37. The thing is I don't think Marting Luther King would tell black people to wait.

Or tell them, don't use your voice, don't use protests, keep quiet they'll get it done some day.

It's the underlying principle that keeps getting lost in our arguments.

That is why movement liberals see it ideologically.

[TheWraith]

56. And again, we see a case of defining the lines to suit an argument.

It could be summarized thusly: "action" that "movement liberals" approve of is reclassified as part of the "movement." "Movements" that "action liberals" approve of are considered "action."

King didn't refuse to help pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it wasn't perfect and wasn't going to fix all the problems. He didn't get discouraged because things didn't happen fast enough. And he didn't believe that just educating people and pursuing the movement was enough without real concrete action and pressure, in Congress and economically through boycotts.

[boston bean]

68. Do you truly believe that movement liberals don't recognize that it will take

an act of congress to get the things we want done. That is a given.

Movement liberals to this day are still fighting for equality. Nothing would get done if there wasn't the pressure to make it happen. Nothing can be perfect or will ever be perfect. But telling people their work is hurting is an insult. Movement liberals aren't discouraged, they are fighting.

[TheWraith]

94. And when compromise or political deal-making is defined as morally wrong or losing your principles?

When one makes a point of rejecting good policy because it's not good enough? What kind of politics is possible then?

And if you concede that goals require political action, how do you define the difference between that and "action"?

The problem with defining liberal goals in strictly movement terms reminds me of a history lesson: the American Anti-Slavery Society. They were an abolitionist group in the decades leading up to the Civil War. One of their chief tenets of belief was the total rejection of political means to end slavery.

Let me restate that: as a movement, they believed that it would be enough to simply argue toward public opinion that slavery was wrong morally and economically, which would cause it to go away, and that any attempt to support politicians or a legal change in the laws would taint their purity. When I see people on DU saying that we should have held out for single payer healthcare or nothing at all, or expecting to fulfill every goal as soon as possible with no need for practicality, compromise, or delayed gratification, then I think back to the American Anti-Slavery Society.

Any kind of political progress inherently involves patience, compromise, and sometimes deals you don't like. Nelson Mandela didn't say to himself "Well, these people aren't willing to release me and turn the country over to majority rule yet, so I'll just sit here until they are and not negotiate." He took what he could get one step at a time, then he went to take the next step. Here on DU he'd be considered a lunatic or a traitor to the cause for negotiating for a decade with people who were by any measurement completely in the wrong. But pragmatism and determination, guided by a commitment to the goal of doing what's right is what drives any political movement.

[boston bean]

111. Look at the compromises and the policy. That is why you will find that

movement liberals feel the party has moved to the right.

Obama himself said the Affordable Healthcare Act was basically the republicans plan of 1992.

Also, you are confusing what I am saying. Movement (edit from moderate) liberals aren't just sitting around smoking a dubie waiting for the world to get better, thinking about their "goals". They are fighting inside and outside the system to effect a change.

I am living in todays world. There is a lot of history where America has messed up.

There is no need to look at movement liberals as an enemy or think they make dems look bad. They are serving a purpose, a righteous purpose at that. And when you hear someone telling them then don't know the system, things won't change over night, it gets one to wonder where one's principles stand. Because movement liberals know better than anyone that things don't change over night. They don't need to be told that. Movement liberals stand on the principle. Incremental change is fine, but don't expect them to say hey GREAT, thank you oh so very much. They have a different purpose. It begins to make one wonder if the ones telling them to not rock the boat believe in the same principles, when they are told to sit back and take what we give you on our time and be grateful for it, we gave you something. Well something isn't what they wanted, there was more to be had and a lot more work to be done.

[treestar]

144. So you expect action liberals to be motivated by constant insults

that things aren't good enough? :rofl: Coming from the same side who is so insulted when it's pointed out they aren't helping.

The action liberal already knows what action needs to be taken and gets as much incremental change as possible, then is supposed to sit there and be insulted by those who did nothing but now aren't being "delivered" what they were "promised."

No wonder this country drifts to the right.

[boston bean]

147. I was just having a very nice conversation. thanks for busting in.

I am telling someone honestly why people feel the way they do, to try and help them understand and myself understand.

Thanks for snyde remarks.

[laughingliberal]

283. Great post! nt

[defendandprotect]

329. Was it "good policy" in your view for Obama to make private deals with Big Pharma ...

and heatlh care industry????

YES ... that is morally wrong and lacking in principles!!

[LooseWilly]

475. Ironically, this comment sounds like your "The problem with..." judgement earlier in the thread.

"The problem with these definitions is that people want to immediately redefine them.

In order to put all successes into the category they view themselves as, and anything they see as negative into the "other" category. ..."

Your words, and they seem to apply quite aptly to other words of yours:

"And when compromise or political deal-making is defined as morally wrong or losing your principles?

When one makes a point of rejecting good policy because it's not good enough? What kind of politics is possible then?

And if you concede that goals require political action, how do you define the difference between that and "action"? "

I haven't seen anyone up-thread defining compromise as "morally wrong" or "losing your principles" ... rather, it sounds like you are doing some of that good old fashioned redefining that you railed about earlier to put "anything they see as negative into the "other" category", not that we "movement liberals" deserve fair or honest representation of our points of view ...

But, what's the problem? Alter's definition of "action" liberals is flattering— so why get defensive when the "dreamy" movement liberals hesitate to roll over and admit that we are mouth breathing warm bodies good for nothing but our obedient votes.

[jgraz]

562. Not half as bad as actually being morally wrong or losing your principles

..and excusing it as "compromise".

Especially when that so-called "compromise" does not result in any political gains for you or your party.

[Ken Burch]

348. There were no compromises in the CIvil Rights Act of 1964 that were anywhere near as brutal

as the loss of the public option in the healthcare bill or what was taken out of the financial reform bill.

It was always clear that the 1964 bill was the END of Jim Crow at a stroke.

[TheWraith]

454. Really? The cutting out completely of voting rights is more minor than financial reform?

You're losing perspective.

[Ken Burch]

480. Everyone knew voting rights would be dealt with in '65,

There were also no gains in the healthcare or finance bills that compared with those in the '64 Civil Rights Act.

[defendandprotect]

328. Agree .... hugely insulting, especially in regard to GL and DADT and DOMA ..... but --

how often do you watch TV and see even one male host suggest we need ERA --

how many Democratis have made mention of it in last ten years?

How often do we hear it even mentioned at DU?

And, usually, if it is mentioned -- it is by a female.

We need to change that!

[Ken Burch]

347. In fact, one of Dr. King's most famous essays was titled "Why We CAN'T Wait"

n/t.

[Le Taz Hot]

490. Actually, you're incorrect

He DID want to go slow. Ref.: See Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcom X. Both epitomize the division between the two sides of the Civil Rights Movement . . . just as it stands today.

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied.

[Jackpine Radical]

171. But part of MLK's basic value system involved working with whites.

He was fundamentally an integrationist, not a separatist, and his work was always closely tied to his values The fact that some, e.g. separatists, may disagree with his values doesn't make him an accommodationist.

And of course your last lines are worth emblazoning over the entryway to DU.

[Ken Burch]

352. Other than the Nation of Islam, nobody really saw it as a sellout

that Dr. King was willing to work with whites.

And such work was actually the most leftist aspect of Dr. King's life, since it was about building a left-wing majority in American political, cultural, and spiritual life.

And, in fact, the most radical effort of Dr. King's life, the effort that in all liklihood got him killed, was his Poor People's Campaign of 1968, a campaign that involved putting together African-Americans, Native Americans, Latino-Americans and POOR WHITES. If Dr. King hadn't been killed, that campaign could well have succeeded and it would have finally, after ninety years broken the grip of the Right on American politics, since it would have cost them the support of that section of white voters who backed reactionary politicians exclusively on racial grounds.

[TheWraith]

455. And part of Obama's value system is being the president of everybody, not just his side.

But you'll never hear an end to the Obama bashing here on DU simply for no better reason than that some people want an ultra-liberal equivalent of Bush.

[defendandprotect]

542. Looks more like Obama/Rahma were worried about being president of business ....

See here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9378544&mesg_id=9380783

that's an earlier post of mine on this thread --

[defendandprotect]

327. Well, if Alter can make up LABELS .... why couldn't we redefine them ... it's all silly ...!!

who made Alter the "god" of label-making???

:rofl:

[Ken Burch]

362. You could just have said..."Why bow at the Altar of Alter?"

n/t.

[nashville_brook]

311. actually, there is a strategy difference b/c the so-called "action" liberal don't have any game

it'd be one thing if they were adroitly moving the ball downfield. instead, they sacrifice yardage and expect us to cheer as if it's a touchdown.

their strategy SUCKS. we win when we push great policy and stand firmly behind the working/middle class (you know, voters). their strategy has nothing to do with mere voters -- it's all about getting the big checks from corporations, banks, and whoever else has their wallet out asking "only leetle favors" in return.

that's the foundation of this crappy election cycle. we had the most amazing "movement" seen in this country in 20 and 40 years, and it was pissed away. that's not good strategy. that's selling out...and selling out cheap.

[suzie]

505. That's interesting, because I was there in the early days of the women's movement,

and I don't remember any female "movement liberals".

They were all off listening to the white male "movement" intellectuals tell us what could happen if...when...if only.

[QC]

512. Was that in South Africa? n/t

[suzie]

577. Why no. Right smack in the middle of the U.S.

[JNelson6563]

23. And it often makes me wonder

why you allow such divisive crap stand day after day here at DU. So discouraging for us, in the trenches, to come in to this once "safe haven" for Dems only to find worse pap then is going on in the corporate media sometimes. Is DU pro-Dem or not?

Curious,
Julie

[Zenlitened]

29. In all honesty, the wedge was set in the OP, IMO....

...for the very reason you described:

...given the fact that Alter clearly identifies with one side, and his perspective colors the way he describes the split.

Alter's take requires that we invent a dichotomy (head versus heart) that doesn't really exist, and then assign one side the role of action-taker, the other the role of dewey-eyed dreamer. Flase framing.

And no one (or few, at any rate) is arguing against pragmatism. It's pragmatism seemingly without even a passing nod to principles that's at issue.

Swing and a miss, IMO.



edit typos

[Skinner]

48. Fair enough.

I probably should have left the second sentence out of my response.

Nonetheless, the suggestion that a split is nonsense seems to be at odds with the reality we experience every day here on Democratic Underground. This split pervades every discussion on DU.

I thought that the names "action liberals" and "movement liberals" were more neutral than any I've heard yet, even if the descriptions are not completely embraced by either side.

[bobbolink]

175. I can understand why you would think the description of "movement liberals" is just dandy.

After all, those of us who were actually THERE during the movements in question are quite aware of not only the work and effort we put into making (real!) change, but the *RISKS* we took.

It is popular with your generation to denigrate us activist boomers, so, no, it doesn't surprise me that you find it easy to dismiss us in that way.

You. Weren't. There.

[MineralMan]

215. I WAS there. I stood in Montgomery in 1965, after driving there from California

as a 19 year old college dropout. I drove there to support that movement. I heard MLK speak in Montgomery, and that set me on a road to try to help achieve his goals, along with other goals. I'm not a boomer, since I was born in 1945. But, that's the generation I'm from. Martin Luther King was both an idealist AND a pragmatist. So am I. I want things to happen, even if they don't happen all at once. Martin Luther King's dream is still not a reality, but progress has been made. Slow, painfully slow at times, but progress.

So, as someone who WAS there and who has been there ever since, I can tell you that ideals are held in common. It is how they are to be achieved that differs. MLK knew that it wasn't going to happen at once, and he worked with people to move things in the right direction. If he were here today, he'd be saying the same thing. The dream is still not reality for far too many, but progress has been made.

[bobbolink]

220. And calling MLK a "dreamy idealist" who could rarely engage in a logical argument is

so much bullshit, isn't it?

Yet, he embodied Movement Politics, and so many of us now.

I understand that you are trying to get me to accept the denigrating language.

I won't acquience to your wishes.

[MineralMan]

340. I never said any such thing.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I say what I mean, and mean what I say. Further, I'm not trying to get you to do anything. I don't even know you. Bye now.

[bobbolink]

376. That's what is in the OP.

And of course you trying to get people to do something. Your own OP is all about that.

[tavalon]

481. Skinner can defend himself

but he wasn't trying to get anyone to acquiesce. He just put up a poll and hoped for a little conversation. He's getting it in spades.

[bobbolink]

521. ?

Total disconnect.

Read my statement again, and read WHO it was addressed to.

Total disconnect.

[nashville_brook]

253. actually, this is the first thread i've seen in a while that so explicitly exploits the wedge.

people have been behaving quite nicely recently, i thought.

[KoKo]

341. I could see where you would pick those two division lines..

But, some would see it as you not being involved enough with the "fault lines" in your Own Blog...that you would be a little behind things here on DU.

I understand...having two young boys (probably keep you racing around) and being the "care provider" is the new norm. And, so without Earl G. maybe you have been punting for a few years.

Whatever... It is nice to see you putting something out there that can engage us.

Peace!

[tavalon]

482. That's really funny

Rimjob punts. These guys have nurtured a kickass website and when most of the rest of us would have just said "Fuck it, I'm getting into a new line of work.", these guys are still going. And they haven't killed a one of us. I'm not sure many of us could tolerate the idiocy that's been DU since Obama was elected.

[Zenlitened]

369. Oh, there's a split all right. With that I agree.

I don't think Alter has succeeded in identifying it, though. Rather, he's created yet another false frame. Plenty of those going around already! :D

[tavalon]

404. Yeah, that's kind of funny

We've been having the equivalent of the Primary Wars here since Obama was elected. Saying it doesn't exist obviously doesn't make it so. I know. I've often envisioned a world without Rove and half of the Supreme Court and still, they are there.

This was destined to become a flame fest but it's an interesting dichotomy and I voted for movement.

[Bluenorthwest]

313. Very well said...

add that Alter and the admin are taking the same position, with full rhetorical flags a snapping, and I find this to be a huge miss.

[defendandprotect]

333. The VOTE should have asked if we agreed with Alter or his efforts to LABEL ...!!

As they sasy ... "it's nice to have the power to label" --

It's also nice to be King!!

:evilgrin:

[tavalon]

483. If you feel this OP is flamebait

There's a little button on the left lower called alert. This could go down just as famously as Walt Starr did. I hardly think the admins would choose to be above the rules. It would be a hoot if this got locked. I'm not alerting though, because I think it was a fairly balanced OP.

[defendandprotect]

536. Funny ... didn't even look to see who started the OP -- Skinner -- !!!

No -- I don't think it is "flamebait" -- but I do think that it's an effort

to manipulate thinking .... framing ...


As I've said elsewhere -- "nice to have the power to label others" --

and "Nice to be King!" ---


:evilgrin:

[truedelphi]

387. A decent analysis of the fact that Alter is missing so much of what

needs to be said.

I mean, was Rosa Parks a dreamer or an action taker?

Or both.

Was LBJ an action taker or a dreamer? Maybe both.

Was FDR an action taker or a dreamer? Or maybe both.

How about Wellstone? Cindy Sheehan?

John Kennedy? Bobby Kennedy? Teddy Kennedy?

[TBF]

70. How so?

I agree that the language and mannerisms of the working class are often not those that are welcome in "polite company". But then, that's exactly what we're moving against - the status quo. If we adjust those to suit the taste of the moderates, are we not already being forced to compromise?

[bobbolink]

163. As opposed to calling us "insane", "fucking retards" , "idiots" and "childish"?

Those, which came FIRST, are much more acceptable?

[nashville_brook]

252. and, "dreamy," doesn't connote irrationalism, thereby driving a wedge in the other direction?

[walldude]

309. As does your OP.

Seems to me like you or Alter decided that Action Liberals are where it's at so you describe them as people who want to get things done and you describe Movement liberals as spacey dreamers who dream big but can't get anything done.

Yeah that's helping with the "wedge".

[dionysus]

310. +1

[defendandprotect]

331. Rather, I think THIS proves that the "split" exists ... between the WH and citizens ...

Rahm .... crowing about preserving "private health care industry" ... business s/b grateful!

Here is the quote: ”In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts:

his advocacy of greater international trade and

education reform open markets despite union skepticism;

his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown;

the rescue of the automobile industry;

the fact that the

overhaul of health care preserved the private delivery system;

the fact that

billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts,

and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B2F85DDF-18...


Certainly the '08 vote was NOT to elect a Democrat to "preserve the PRIVATE health care system" --

76% and more of the public supported single payer/government run health care.

Including Catholics by even larger percentages -- and INCLUDING reproductive health care

down the line, with support among Catholics for CHOICE being 51%.

Catholic women have just as many abortions as any other women, despite the US Catholic Bishops

and the Pope.

Nor did Americans elect a Democratic president to replace public education with Charter schools!







Note: This info was posted at DU previously by another poster on 8/12/10.

[nashville_brook]

344. zing -- exactly right.

[Ken Burch]

346. The biggest wedge is the refusal of the "Action Liberals"

to treat the Movement Liberals with the respect they deserve. They should treat them as their equals in the process, and yet never really do.

[Le Taz Hot]

489. The wedge was started by you

posting this drivel in the first place.

[Arkana]

41. Hey, look at how insulting you are.

[bobbolink]

177. Yes, some have finally been fighting back against the insults directed toward US.

Just like some of us liberals got tired of taking the ugly crap from the RW, and are now tossing it back at them.

Using the same tactics is very likely to get you the same results.

[CTyankee]

307. No, not really. It means you are willing to work the system as long as

you canget results and reach your goals. You can become a movement liberal when nothing can be accomplished the other way. I can think of several of those cases in my own lifetime. E.G., in CT women tried again and again to persuade the state legislature to legalize birth control in the state. In the early 60s enough was enough: CT was the only state in the nation that outlawed contraception. It was a travesty. The executive director of the state's Planned Parenthood League, Estelle Griswold, along with help from Yale Law School andthe head of the obstetrical dept. at Yale Medical School, decided to test the law by dispensing birth control to women and let the local police know what they were doing. Griswold and Yale's Dr. Lee Buxton were arrested and the rest is history.

Interesting note on Estelle Griswold. She was a feisty type and at the time of the arrest she was in a battle with her Board of Directors. Maybe not too pleasant a person, but she clearly changed the lives of many women!

[readmoreoften]

458. +1.

And it's a nice way to pretend that the union-busting, backroom dealing, anti-democratic (populist) forces within the party are the "actors", you know the "history makers." Can you imagine characterizing the HRC as the "actors" of LGBT politics while the people in the streets pushing for change are the "movement?" Ridiculous.

[YOY]

527. +1

n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

6. If the "action liberals" were actually effective in enacting "liberal" policies

ie, policies that actually improve things for the majority of society, I would be more aligned with them. I don't see them being effective in enacting good policy, just trying as hard as they can not to rock the boat and going along to get along. For that reason I cannot say that I identify with them.

What I wouldn't give for a pragmatic liberal politician who was actually good at getting things accomplished.

[nashville_brook]

308. [phone]

[readmoreoften]

459. +1

[blondeatlast]

7. "And our bumper sticker says... continued on other bumper sticker."

Al Franken, from the article. Love it!

[MineralMan]

8. I'm an action liberal. Always have been.

Things need to be done. Not doing them doesn't get them done.

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. The problem arises when the dealmaking becomes the object

rather than the change that the dealmaking is supposed to enhance.

With action liberals, it's all about the game, and nevermind the principles.

[MineralMan]

93. Not at all. First the change is defined.

Then the deal is made to get as much of the change as is possible at that time. Without the deal, no change happens at all.

[Ken Burch]

361. And when the "action" liberals start gloating

about how much they've stuck it to the "movement" crowd.

[HughMoran]

534. Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophesy to me

I can't think of anybody who wants to "stick it to" anybody. Sounds somewhat like projection if you ask me.

[Hippo_Tron]

424. I don't think that's true

I think that action liberals are simply focused on much smaller policy changes than movement liberals. They are people who set out to accomplish things like making it illegal for insurance companies to deny you for a pre-existing condition and allowing people to stay on their parents' plan until they are 26. If they get these things they are satisfied and they have no problem making compromises to get them.

Movement liberals are people who set out to make big changes like fundamentally reforming the health care system. They are people who aren't satisfied with those small changes and are even less satisfied with the deal making that goes into getting those small changes.

[RaleighNCDUer]

518. Lets look at those two specifics the inaction liberals like to crow about.

It is illegal to deny for a pre-existing condition. That's a good change. But, there is nothing that says they can't charge out the wazoo to cover that in their policy, making the actual health CARE just as unlikely as if they had no coverage to begin with (unless you are wealthy, of course). All they do is move you from the 'uninsurable' column to the 'high risk - charge what the market will bear +10%' column.

But they more than make up for it on the kids. Kids who, when they are young, tend to be healthy and who would have not been covered - meaning they bought no policies - are now continuing to pay into the insurance company coffers through their parents whose own policies would have been reduced to principle +1 policies but will now continue to pay for higher cost family policies. Seriously, did you ever hear ANY insurance company flack protesting "but we CAN'T AFFORD to let them continue on their parents' policies - it will BREAK us!"?

Sure, some people will be helped by both these changes, but the ones helped the most will be the insurance companies. This is not incremental change - it is letting the insurance companies write the legislation.

A public option, otoh, which was never really put on the table, would have done both of these, AND enforced cost controls. It would not have left 25 million uninsured, and an additional 40 million insured but unable to utilize that insurance for being unable to cover co-pays and deductibles.

But public option = pony, I guess.

[sabrina 1]

546. Yes, like ending torture as a policy of this country,. Those sitting

in our gulags around the world, those still being renditioned, their families and loved ones, don't really have time to wait for 'action liberals' to finally get around to actually doing something about it. Many have died already, or been rendered insane, innocent people, while 'action liberals' deliberated over the politics of it all.

I'm 'other' just someone who will keep on whining about such things as those being tortured or bombed to smithereens by our drones, because this is an emergency situation, lives are at stake and it's being treated as thought the decision was 'should we have the Merlot or the Sauvignon with dinner'?

Some of us will keep on whining about the fact that the rule of law has not been reestablished and that while the so-called 'action liberals' are quite content with the proclamations of 'moving on' from war crimes, we will keep on whining and agitating and acting to try to get this done.

Non-action on the rule of law! If this is what 'action liberals' call action, then I think we 'others' will simply have to leave them in their comfortable homes where they find it possible to ignore the torture and renditions and drone murders of innocent civilians.

Of course if they were to join those of us who would like to see some action on these massive crimes, we could get it done more easily. In fact I see 'pragmatic' or 'action liberals' as they define themselves as a big boulder in the way of progress because of their willingness to just follow the leaders instead of lead themselves on issues as important as restoring sanity, the rule of law, in this country.

The screams of the tortured don't have to be heard literally, but personally I hear them anyhow and find it abhorrent to hear any American say 'we just can't do that right now, it's politically naive to think we can'.

Well call me naive. Because we could, if everyone joined in the effort, rather than worry about their team maybe losing an election. A good leader would simply do it. But why should the leaders do it when their followers give them a pass?

[laughingliberal]

9. I'm going with 'other.' Depends on the issue & the cost/benefit of the compromise.

I can support compromise and deal making in the interest of progress. However, it must be for enough progress to make a real difference. I'm not in favor of giving up large chunks of traditional Democratic principles to get a crumb that will make a barely perceptible difference in people's lives.

And there are some issues on which I say we should give no quarter to those who oppose us.

And, yes, Alter is biased towards one side over the other and it shows in his writing.

[demmiblue]

18. +1

[leftstreet]

24. +1

What you said

:thumbsup:

[Crunchy Frog]

88. +100. n/t

[sabrina 1]

106. Agree. Deal-making is when every side gets something.

When one side gets nothing, that's not called deal-making, it's called giving in. And all too often those described by Alter as 'action Liberals' take the position that women's rights, ending torture, holding war criminals accountable, not going after the crooks on Wall St. and much more, are merely pet issues easily traded away for a 'win'.

Like you and probably most people, which is what makes this black and white thinking irrelevant, I am neither, I detest labels. They are intended to divide. People cannot be boxed into these black and white categories. If an issue is worthwhile, then it is worth fighting for. And I don't know what you call people who believe that. But neither of these two labels, which I believe were meant to denigrate anyone who anyone who opposes caving in to Republicans on issues like Women's Rights, describe most of the people I know. Most are intelligent enough to know when to make a deal and when they are being rolled over.

This is not new, btw, it is pretty old. This same argument with slightly different labels, 'pragmatists V realists' eg, has been raised before with the same fairly transparent goal. To diminish those who believe that principles DO matter, and that fighting for them is worthwhile.

It is worthless argument. Some things are right such as restoring the Rule of Law and Habeas Corpus and no amount of Madison Ave. labeling can change that.

Which is all Alter is doing. Using Madison Ave. labeling to divide people.

I wonder what category he would put Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin into? Dreamy eyed or not?

[laughingliberal]

114. sabrina1 is my hero. nt

[Turborama]

156. +1

[treestar]

146. None of that stuff has ever been traded or bargained away.

And not everyone is so extreme as to describe as "nothing" things like the health care plan or the banking reforms.

Too much on DU as if there are no Republicans and they have no power.

[sabrina 1]

186. People at the top of the Bush administration have been held

accountable for war crimes? I was told we were moving on from war crimes as soon as Democrats won the WH and Congress, in the interests of bi-partisanship. And I am continually told that we cannot pursue those criminals, something that for eight years, both 'action and movement' liberals were demanding while Bush was president, that now we cannot do it because Republicans will call us traitors if we do.

What do 'action liberals' think about that? I would think these labels are mis-applied as 'action' means 'doing something', 'taking action'. And what could be more important, what WAS more important than restoring the rule of law in this country. Wasn't that one of the main reasons people on left worked so hard to elect Democrats?

And what about Wall St.? Has anyone of those crooks who destroyed, not just our economy, but the world economy, been held accountable? Are there investigations going on? Some are calling what they did the 'crime of the century' because of the world wide destruction that has resulted from those crimes?

Action to me means doing something about these crimes, NOT turning a blind eye to them in the dreamy-eyed belief that if you ignore crimes, they will simply go away. Maybe I am an 'action liberal' after all since I really don't care much what Republicans think of us. And attributing the ability to think at all to them, is being kind.

[laughingliberal]

193. Thank you, sabrina1. None so blind as those...nt

[sabrina 1]

202. True, but I think only a small minority of the American people

are such party loyalists from either side, that when it comes down to real issues that affect their lives, like SS eg, they can placed in either of these two categories. They will vote for those they believe best represent them.

I have always loved your positions on the issues, as I've said before. I think you probably represent the majority of people. Maybe Alter should have included a category for the American people. He appears to be talking mostly about those whose lives revolve around politics rather than issues.

[treestar]

209. Prosecuting a crime is more complex than you think it is

Especially at the level we are talking about. It would be difficult to get evidence and witness cooperation. Witnesses to this stuff may fear for their lives. It would take up time and resources.

A falling economy must be dealt with immediately. It does take first place from any and all issues, especially difficult, high level prosecutions. The economy is still not recovering fast enough.

We are "moving on from war crimes" unless you're going to accuse Obama of war crimes? Bush lied us into the war. We just recently got out of it (unless you're going to claim we're still there?)

[sabrina 1]

Well, I call 50,000 troops and 'contractors' still getting huge

contracts, along with several military bases and the biggest Embassy in the history of the world 'still there'.

'It would take up time and resources'. It would take COURAGE and action. I find it appalling that this is the excuse for not pursuing war criminals! Seriously, did we accept it when Bush refused to pursue them after Abu Ghraib eg?

Sorry, but a strong nation only becomes stronger when it lives up to its own laws. We can no longer accuse any other country of war crimes with a straight face and when we do, they quickly silence us by reminding us of our crimes. That weakens us as a nation.

There were many ways to deal with the failing economy. One of them was NOT to hire the very same people who made it fail, to fix it. And another was to make sure that no one who was responsible was allowed to reward themselves for their crimes.

Banks could have been nationalized temporarily. The public was in favor of that and other countries have done it. Then those responsible, fired and if called for, prosecuted.

Now we are seeing how much more they were trying to hide. The truth is sooner or later it will have to be done. We will have to apply the rule of law. For me, who voted 'other' in this poll, better sooner than later, as stalling and procrastinating will not solve these problems, nor have they.

As for Obama, I imagine he got a rude awakening when he got to the WH. I'm at the point where I no longer think the American president has much say in anything and as such I prefer a Democrat because as long they think that keeping the illusion of Democracy alive benefits them, they allow each party to throw a few crumbs to their base. With a Democrat WE get the crumbs.

In the end, it is up the people. This didn't all happen because anyone was taking 'action' when necessary. It happened because action was NOT taken. After Watergate, Iran Contra etc. all for 'pragmatic' purposes. We tried that route, and this is what it got us. More and worse crimes.

Now in a sense you are admitting that that inaction has made it virtually impossible to return to the Rule of Law. What a sad (and really I mean no offense nor is this directed at you personally as it appears to be the prevailing theory), but that attitude is defeatist. Times have been worse in history but courageous people did not accept 'it can't be done' and yes, it has a cost when you take bold action, but if we really are at a point where war criminals go free, then I think we're at the point the cost, whatever it is, is worth it. That is just my opinion.

[treestar]

286. I don't think we ever entirely abandoned the rule of law

The Cheney administration would have liked to, but the Supreme Court shot down some of their claims while they were still in office.

The debate about what is best to do about the economy could go on for years, as it has. Obama simply had to attend to the economy first. If you don't like what he and Congress have done about it, that's another issue.

[sabrina 1]

336. A few very small victories for the victims of the war machine.

The main perpetrators have been told they have nothing to worry about, we are moving on. I don't call that action.

As for agreeing with Obama on the economy, I do not agree with rewarding those responsible for its collapse nor with appointing them to positions of power. Surely we have smart Democrats who had not failed already, who could have been appointed to those positions?

I supported Democrats because I do not like Republican ideas. I did not think that by doing so, Republicans, such as Alan Simpson eg, and Judd Gregg among others, would be returned to positions of power after they were thrown out of office. There is far too much catering to Republicans despite the fact that the American people spoke clearly about how they felt about their ideas.

Eg, the President admitted to making over 200 concessions for Republicans in the HC Bill. He admitted that in order to let the American people know that he HAD tried to work with them and they still weren't satisfied.

But what that really said was, while he made no concessions to the people who elected him, he bent over backwards for Republicans and what did that get him? Not a single Republican vote, EVEN THOUGH, as he pointed out almost with a sense of disbelief, he had tried so hard to please them.

What THEY got was an unpopular bill they wanted for the most part, which no Republican president could have passed because the left would have been united against it for one thing, without being responsible for it. A win-win for them. While you can that action, I wouldn't call it good action. Alter supporting Bush's war in Iraq, might also be called action, but is there anyone who could call that 'good' action? We weren't asking for 'perfect'. Good would have sufficed for now.

[EFerrari]

255. Both Bush and Cheney have confessed to torture on naitonal television.

:crazy:

[laughingliberal]

288. Yes. It's hard work, no doubt about it.

If standing up for the right thing was easy, everyone would do it.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

571. Difficult to get evidence?

So Cheney's and Bush's televised confessions of enganging in waterboarding are not enough "evidence"??? :rofl:

Jesus fucking christ I need hipwaders for all the bullhit. It i not because of a lack of evidence we are not getting trials for the war criminals, it is because Obama lacks the courage to proceed. Plain and simple.

[Lilith Velkor]

385. Looks like 'action liberal' is going over as well as 'solidarity democrat.'

Put THAT in your fucking focus group and smoke it! :rofl:

[chimpymustgo]

230. Fantastic post. It's about PRINCIPLES not LABELS.

[DirkGently]

267. Yep. Bang-on.

[whatchamacallit]

363. + awesome! n/t

[suzie]

502. I wonder how the slaves that Thomas Jefferson promised their freedom thought of him?

Somehow, I don't think that people who were sold on the front lawn of Jefferson's plantation instead of being granted the freedom that he promised were as likely to think of him as an "action liberal".

I'd guess that they didn't appreciate his eloquence nearly so much as those who currently love to invoke Jefferson, since the lifestyle that enabled him to dream great dreams was based on mortgaging other human beings to whom he'd promised freedom.

[sabrina 1]

525. I wonder why the Revolutionaries did not include his

clause demanding the abolition of slavery in the Declaration of Independence? Oh yes, they were afraid that if they did, including John Adams, definitely a movement liberal by Alter's standards, they would lose the support of the south. And those Movement Liberals, the Founding Fathers, even those like John Adams who abhorred slavery as a great evil and never owned a slave, realized that they had to first gain support for independence. Those dreay-eyed idealists, always trying to be so pragmatic.

If there had been no Jefferson, it's very likely there would have been no freedom at all. Like all the FFs, he was a complex human being, a man who described slavery as evil, was willing to risk his life and the revolution he was so dedicated to, to attempt to end it. He was there at a time when men of great courage were willing to begin the process that eventually led to abolition.

Slaves were property at that time, and even if he had wanted to free them, he could not as his debtors had placed the equivalent of liens on them. Laws had been passed abolishing slavery, but the King had rescinded them. Had that happened, those liens would have meant little. Perhaps that is why he so wanted to abolish slavery, to free himself from his financial obligation to hold slaves when he so abhorred slavery.

Jefferson's clause which was not included in the DOE on the advise of Benjamin Franklin who also never owned a slave, and John Adams whose opinion of slavery is well known:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another

I imagine a century or so from now, people will be asking why President Obama, who like Jefferson on slavery, spoke eloquently regarding the oppression and denial of Civil Rights for Gays, fought each court ruling that granted them their rights as U.S. citizens.

There will be no supporters around to explain his reasons. History will simply note that President Obama seemed conflicted regarding the Civil Rights of Gays.

As I said, these things are complex and both Obama and Jefferson appear to contradict themselves on such an important issue as the freedom of U.S. citizens. It will be hard to explain President Obama's apparent contradictory actions towards the Civil Rights of Gays.

Maybe, like the Action Liberals of the times who refused to take any action against the King, you would have preferred that the FFs because of their imperfections, just keep on negotiating, hoping that some day, maybe, the King or his successors would finally do the right thing. Kind of like the way today's 'Action liberals' have this naive belief that if we keep on negotiating with Republicans, they too will finally see the light.

Me, who voted 'other', I'll take what the FFs did, imperfections and all, because they had to start somewhere, and negotiating with ideologues is a lost cause, which every Movement Liberal knows.

[suzie]

569. Geez, I didn't realize that the difference between "action liberals" and "movement liberals"

was the levels of apologism that the latter would stoop to defend their heroes.

The convoluted logic of the King and Jefferson and his wanting to abolish slavery is so bizarre that, frankly, I can't even follow its apologistic nonsense.

The fact is that it's likely that Jefferson wasn't against slavery AT ALL, EVER. He may have mouthed words to that effect, but he didn't even see fit to free the woman who bore his children--who was the sister of his deceased wife. His daughter did that after his death.

In fact, the historical revisionism in stating that Jefferson was willing to risk his life to end slavery is just unbelievable. As is the total fictional nonsense that Thomas Jefferson "was there...to begin the process that eventually led to abolition."

Historical fact is that the Somersett Case, which began the emancipation of slaves in England, was decided in 1772. I know that doesn't fit with the context of your historical fiction, but what Thomas Jefferson and the other southern Founding Fathers were actually doing was trying to extend the duration of slavery, which formally ended in the British Empire in 1833. Unless you believe that, as men who had studied the law, Jefferson, Monroe, Madison, Henry, etc., would have been totally ignorant of such a rather important case that would affect their personal lifestyles.

Contrary to your contrived apologism for Thomas Jefferson and historically revisionist silliness about he and the other FFs starting down the road toward abolition, the "action liberals" of the time were filing lawsuits that ended slavery in England with the Somersett case.

Another "action liberal" who seemed to take at least as much risk as Jefferson, George Washington, was not so eloquent in his defense of slavery. A better businessman, or perhaps just a better human being, Washington is the only Founding Father who freed his slaves, even if his arrangements were less than optimal.

He also seemed to do so without leaving the legacy of racism sentiments that would allow future generations to invoke Thomas Jefferson's eloquence in defense of slavery. Nor is Washington known to have ever taken sexual advantage of a slave.

But the image of the poor, victimized Thomas Jefferson just couldn't free his slaves because he was being preyed upon by those terrible bankers seems to take historical revisionism to new, hysterical heights.

[sabrina 1]

573. And the same will probably be said about President Obama

when History records his actions regarding the Civil Rights of Gays.


The fact is that it's likely that Obama wasn't against discrimination against Gays, EVER. He may have mouthed words to that effect but he didn't even see fit to issue an Executive Order to stop the dismissals of Gays in the military. On the contrary, he defended DADT after a ruling calling the law unconstitutional'

Since I don't accept the silly labels you refer to, there isn't much point in continuing a conversation that uses them as a frame.

The truth is you have no idea what Jefferson believed regarding slavery since all we have are his actions, not unusual at all at the time and place he lived in, and his words which contradict them.

You had little to say about John Adams or Ben Franklin I notice, but as expected from those wishing to distract from the main points made regarding those who actually DID lay down their lives, including Jefferson, (interesting that you think that signing the DOE did not jeopardize the lives of those who signed it) to take action against the tyranny of Monarchy, you jump all over one FF and in doing so, reveal your inability to debunk the main points made. The FFs, if we were to be silly enough to use Alter's black and white frame, would be considered 'movement liberals'.

[suzie]

616. You really should read about the Somersett case, before continuing with your silly apologism

for the slaveholding Founding Fathers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somersett%27s_Case

They knew that the "peculiar institution" was coming to an end in Europe and wanted to preserve it for as long as possible on American soil.

Your apologism for Thomas Jefferson is still amazing. Are we to applaud him that he didn't whip his slaves himself, trade them or order them executed like other Founding Fathers?
Why, he allowed his mistress to remain a house slave to his daughter, how very charming of Mr. Jefferson.

You want to denigrate Barack Obama and Democrats for what you see as caving on women's rights, fine. But don't then disparage me for recognizing that John Adams and others caved to the slaveholding Southerners.

Because the Somersett case had already been ruled upon--the die was already cast. Slavery would eventually end in the British colonies, as it did 32 years sooner than in the U.S.

You might consider revision of your continued, disgusting apologies for Thomas Jefferson's treatment of his slaves by reading a little about Alexander Hamilton. Who had grown up around the institution of slavery but opposed it, unlike the Jeffersons, Madisons, Monroes, Lees, and Henry's who were unwilling to give up their "property" and their lives of comfort. And in Hamilton's case, who had rather more forward looking views of educating blacks than your hero.

I continue to be shocked and completely appalled that anyone who would ever call themselves a "Democrat" or a "progressive" would express the apologist views that you have about Thomas Jefferson.

[treestar]

584. No, history will see him as the first President who did anything for gay rights

Besides, it's not like being a slave. Gays have all civil rights except marriage and serving openly in the military.

[Ignis]

639. Nicely stated.

:thumbsup:

[Mimosa]

648. I agree, Sabrina. In advertising such labeling is called 'branding.'

I don't think it is particularly helpful within the Democratic Party to label and divide.

Alter writes like somebody who gets paid by the word.

[Enrique]

10. I think it is flattering to the "action liberals"

which is natural, since Alter is one of them, according to his definition.

My question for Alter: if being an action liberal is so great, why was Obama's main message to be the opposite of an action liberal? Why did he keep promising that "he doesn't want to play the game better". Isn't an action liberal someone who "plays the game better?"

[Ghost in the Machine]

11. I'm a Movement Liberal.... but watch for my "Ghost in the Machine Action Figure"...

... coming soon to a Dollar Store near YOU!

[lunatica]

12. Movement liberal. My heroes are people who made the impossible happen

Ghandi, Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr.

they changed the world within their lifetimes. And they are and were peacemongers. And because they created major change I believe it can be done all the time. It happened, therefore it's a real force.

[Jamastiene]

432. What they did also had a lasting benefit for a lot more people too.

What "action liberals" do usually only has a short term benefit for a few.

I'd rather be a "movement liberal" (as used in this context) any day of the week.

[MellowDem]

593. All of those people were pragmatists...

which just goes to show that these labels are meaningless.

[Spazito]

13. Very much an Action Liberal....

if one must choose between the two descriptors. I do believe, however, a healthy political ideology, liberalism, needs both the action/pragmatist and the movement/idealist in order to move goals forward.

[RaleighNCDUer]

54. Sorry, but the opposite of action is not movement - it is inaction. nt

[Spazito]

77. Not in the context of both the question and the article from whence the question came...

on which my response is predicated. I made no mention of opposites rather I stated my belief that a political ideology, in this case, liberalism needs both the idealist and the pragmatist to actually achieve the goals both want to achieve. Idealists and pragmatists are not opposites as their goal is the same, where they may differ is how to achieve the goal, imo.

[RaleighNCDUer]

87. Only if you buy Alter's framing.

I don't.

(on edit)

There is a significant difference between the pragmatic wing and activist wing - activists do not let the other side frame the arguments. "Yes, but..." is inherently weaker than "No!"

[Spazito]

95. Pragmatics are activists too.....

that's where your argument falls apart, imo. It is the "how" in 'how to get there from here' where there are differences as opposed to the 'there' where, for the most part, there is little disagreement.

Neither "pragmatist" nor "idealist" is a pejorative, imo, and to see some trying to frame them that way is unfortunate, to say the least.

[Chan790]

129. See, I think pragmatism is absolutely perjorative...

on its' own merits. I don't want to break bread with pragmatists, I think they're quislings. If you're unwilling to ever draw a line in the sand and say "Past this line, we will not compromise. We will fight and take our lumps and lose if need be, but we will not compromise." then eventually you'll give up the whole farm.

I'm a movement liberal. Beyond that, I'm an issues liberal (Democrats that don't stand firm on Democratic issues do not deserve my support and I will work against them every step up-to the general election, then I will stay home.) and a purity liberal (I support a purge of bad Democrats. I'd rather have a smaller tent in lockstep.)

[Spazito]

137. Yes, I recognize from your posts your view of pragmatism....

"I'd rather have a smaller tent in lockstep." Yes, I believe you would, unfortunately.

[Chan790]

134. "Yes, but..." is inherently weaker than "No!"

:applause:

[Chan790]

108. And the opposite of movement...

is stasis. What's your point here?

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Is that like how Eddie Izzard is an 'Action Transvestite'?

The 'split' is rhetorical nonsense.

[proud patriot]

15. I'd like to think I'm both

:shrug:

[DevonRex]

44. Thank you. I was thinking the exact same thing. nt

[Turborama]

145. That's why I clicked on "Other"

Glad to know I'm not the only one. :hi:

ETA I'd like to think any "deal-making and Big Money connections" would be the kind that would "turn on" the base, though. Not all "Big Money" is bad.

[proud patriot]

317. bingo

[Enrique]

17. Action liberals want to extend the Bush tax cuts

the Bush tax cuts that barely passed when Bush and the GOP controlled the govt.

The Bush tax cuts that only Ben Nelson voted for. The Bush tax cuts that every democratic candidate promised in the primaries to end.

The action liberals are going to try to extend these tax cuts.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/10/22/biden-lets-make-a-deal/

Biden, appearing on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” said the administration is willing to consider raising from $250,000 the threshold at which higher taxes kick in under President Obama’s tax proposal.

The quid pro quo: Democrats get the tax cut they want – extending the Bush-era tax cuts for middle class families.

“I think it’s important we get the middle-class tax cut made permanent,” Biden said, adding: “We’re open to speak to the Republicans, if they really mean it, if they’re talking about deficit reduction, if they’re willing to move.”

(...)

“I don’t have any problem with wealthy people getting a tax cut. I mean, for real,’’ he said. “I mean, these are good guys.”

[JNelson6563]

21. And the non-action liberals will remain powerless

Endlessly wondering why all their righteous bitching on the tubes gets them nowhere. lolz.

Julie

[Enrique]

27. pretty harsh n/t

[TheWraith]

34. And about as fair as your characterization she replied to. nt

[bobbolink]

223. Some have "harsh" down really well.

Judgment is *IN*

[donco6]

38. Case in point. The very epitome of "non-action liberal." n/t

[MuseRider]

62. You seem to imply

that those of us who are movement liberals do not do anything but dream and bitch. Really J? You would be very wrong to assume that. lolz

BTW, power may mean a completely different thing to movement liberals than to action liberals.

[JNelson6563]

85. I consider myself an action liberal

but not necessarily along the lines of definition the OP puts forth. More like literally. I got so pissed off after the election theft of 2000 I got involved. Found my local Dem party and joined them. Built membership, raised lots of money and had a real support network for Dem candidates, for the first time ever in this county. I pressed on for some years and then became the chair of our Congressional District in order to show the other 13 counties of my district how to build a party, raise money and support candidates.

That is the action I am talking about, not posting on the internet though that does serve some positive purpose. It can be very informative and inspirational as well.

Mind you in real world politics there were lots of people so of course there are bound to be differences. Unlike DU we tended to focus on our common ground and work to achieve our common goals, mostly leaving our seemingly piddling differences aside. No one who worked to make a difference insisted that their special pet issue was the only one that mattered. Like DU tho' there were those who liked to be on the the board to have a vote at meetings but did nothing beyond that. They often had complaints about things and did nothing to contribute to improving those things, just pissing and moaning. Eventually they took their negativity and went home, getting out of the way of those who actually wanted to make a difference.

As you see none of this has anything to do with hair splitting on what labels to apply to the various Dems that were involved and make no mistake, we had all stripes. It was all about those who wanted to make a difference and those who just wanted to go to meetings and do a lot of talking.

All that aside, after doing all of that I actually had some say about how things went. What resources we had to work with and where we directed them. I can assure you, those who did nothing but post on the internet had nothing to do with the resources that were acquired and had no say in how they were applied. That's what I mean by remaining powerless. Unless you are actually involved, yes, you will remain pretty powerless. That is how it has always been and will always be.

Julie

[MuseRider]

97. I started

a successful, statewide organization from the remains of the marriage amendment from the ground up. No, I do not sit and bitch on the internet and will put my action creds up against most and I am in the other category.

Until action liberals get their heads out of their power jobs and look and listen to the rest of us things will never be good again. Look at how it is now? If this is what you call good then OK but I wager most of us would like it to be better. Having power and not listening to those with ideas that may move society forward is a no win. I guarantee we would not be waging our fights on the right side of the fence now if the party had listened and held to the old Democratic platforms.

Now that being said, we too need to listen. We don't very well because there is nothing moving left, there are heavy promises that have been made and then not only not worked on they were subverted and now we have nothing. Now is the time that movement libs draw together and plan and make moves in society not the party. There is education going on out here that I can guarantee most dems in power have no clue are happening. They don't care about it but it will move things forward eventually, again in the same small increments that action libs have to deal with. We too are pragmatic but you don't want to know that apparently. Anyone who could make a blanket statement that differences are "pet" issues just has not listened and does not care.

I think I will go back to working on my "pet" issue of equality now. Odd that is such a pain in the ass for the other group.

[JNelson6563]

123. What we have here is a failure to communicate.

We all need to listen to each other and if we want to change the party we won't be able to do it from the internets or by setting unrealistic goals (and no, I don't consider equality for all an unrealistic goal so let's not turn this into a flamewar). I am of the mind that if enough people get off their asses and show up to their local party we could change the direction of things. As long as many are content to hang out on the tubes those we disagree with will still be running things.

That, in my mind, is the difference between action and inaction.

Julie

[MuseRider]

142. OK that seems different

I have a headache and am very tired so if I misunderstood I am terribly sorry. It is beautiful outside but I have to do computer work so I am also testy.

I agree and I disagree. I think we all tried to work within the party. The party has closed the door on many people. Now this is just my version of how I saw things go down so feel free to correct if it is different but this is what was seen here and felt. Once the DLC was up and involved the people were, for the most part, left out of the equation. At that point, when they no longer needed us, things changed and they changed quickly and the door was not only closed but locked.

I don't think there is much a person can do inside anymore. Maybe a few but the power is not with us. I would prefer to be an Independent working outside the party making things happen in society that will hopefully and eventually demand that the Democrats come home or creates a viable party that will adopt the old Democratic platform. To be clear, I will not be a part of creating a party. I do not believe in the party system anymore so I remain a free range liberal :).

As far as whether a person actually gets up and does things I believe it is their option. I am glad they are involved to the point that they come here and bitch and moan and learn things and learn how to argue points. Again, to me that is part of the Movement Dems. They are not wasting their time nor are they wasting the time of those out there working. Hopefully they will be making your job easier. Everyone is needed but we can't all do the same things.

[JNelson6563]

208. Peace to you.

:toast:

[MuseRider]

335. Back at you JNelson.

We all need each other but it is hard to keep it all in perspective. I am happy you have found your place as I have found mine. It will take both of us to make a change and if I have to die trying I am going to survive Sam Brownback and not let things slip. I am figuring my time of rest is over, it is going to be a long hard haul unless Tom Holland can somehow overcome the Koch money and the Brownback "good old boy" "farm boy just like you" crap. I would imagine I am going to be in caustic form for a while, I guess I should apologize in advance, this is going to be hard and unpleasant but we are ready.

Lets all keep moving forward. :-)

Peace back at you and good luck. Thanks for all you do to move liberal agendas forward.:thumbsup: :hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

287. ...

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[EFerrari]

101. That's an excellent point, Muserider.

"power may mean a completely different thing to movement liberals than to action liberals."

[MuseRider]

105. LOL

I learned this from our lobbyist who lives with us for 4 months during the legislative session. He is the ultimate action liberal. He believes in the process and probably here in Kansas it must be this way. We fight and talk and fight and kiss and make-up. We love each other but could not be more different. In the end he understands me but does not agree and I understand him but agree that it is the best tactic right now with the larger idealism cause underneath working for movement.

To me power in influencing society, not ignoring part of it to make things easier.

[EFerrari]

117. LOL. It's funny because for some people, power means

making people do what you want them to do and for other people, power is the aggregate of what people do together for the common good.

It's pretty hard to get those very different views to be visible to their respective adherents.

LOL

[MuseRider]

130. Yes it is.

I have never understood why the factions can't have respect for one another and work together. Personally I don't think in this day or for some time the two factions in the Dem party even want the same thing but that is another discussion.

I will work with anyone until they start belittling me and what I am doing and who I am doing it for. Once that starts that person becomes someone I will avoid but I will fight back for a while. I am tired of being pigeonholed into some Kum By Ya/UFO Moonbat category. I can accomplish what I do without that so I fight back and then remove myself, there is too much to be done. There are many action Dems and here in Kansas many action Republicans that we can work with. Our approach is different and most of our work, the more movement oriented, is done away from the State House but we still lobby and do our thing there as well.

I can't imagine wanting to make someone do what I want. Really, that does not make for a real change.

[bobbolink]

224. That's a very cogent picture, and definitive of the split.

[sabrina 1]

342. Righteous bitching against Bush's illegal wars eg. True,

we didn't have the power to stop it, but we stood up sometimes with dire consequences when it was needed.

Alter, otoh, action liberal that he is, supported that war.

Frankly I'd rather be me or 'other' who did not have the power to prevent that massive crime but tried hard anyhow, than Alter who did support it. Sure he has power than I do, but he was wrong.

Not all action is good action. Bush, eg, took plenty of action and had plenty of power.

History will not be kind to that kind of action liberal. Unless they write it.

[TBF]

493. And what exactly have the "action" liberals accomplished -

besides kissing up to the Republicans and managing to squander every opportunity presented in order to keep the status quo happy. War continues, torture continues, unemployment continues, gap between rich and poor increases, the list goes on and on. Nothing has changed for the workers.

[Zenlitened]

40. Just the fact that this issue is being discussed as "the Bush tax cuts"...

... is a sign of how poorly the "action" Democrats play the game.

Where was the Obama/Democratic Party Middle Class Tax Cut Bill? Why wasn't it introduced last summer, to great fanfare, as something Liberals seek on behalf of ordinary Americans everywhere?

Perhaps the politics of omitting the wealthy from such a bill made doing so impossible, despite the enormous value of standing up and boldly advancing the interests of the middle class.

If that's the case, then that too is a sign that "action" of the sort Alter describes is often a hindrance, rather than an advantage.

[nc4bo]

19. According to Mr. Alter, I can identify myself as a movement liberal...nt

[MuseRider]

20. Movement

I am standing for equality until it happens. Rather than being something the country stands for it is an ideal, sad that. However, that being said living in Kansas forces me to be very happy with each little movement forward but in actuality I am an idealist, the kind that people around here seem to see little use for. I see idealists as those who make big moves by providing contrast and a larger goal to shoot for, not as traitors or "dreamy". I can assure you there is little dreamy about most of the idealists I know. We are very serious and an integral part of societal movement. Some of us, myself included, do fit somewhat in the action side from time to time but not always.

"I especially appreciate the fact that he described the split as "tactical" rather than ideological or values-based. It seems obvious to me from reading DU that we all share the same core values, even if we disagree on how to achieve our shared goals."

That is a very important statement and much appreciated.

Now, if we could just stop shoving groups of people into corners and insulting them until they no longer wish to participate we might get somewhere.

[Codeine]

22. Action. Getting good things done beats dreaming about getting

perfect things done.

[AndrewP]

559. +1

[Posteritatis]

25. Action who wants to be movement. (nt)

[Lasher]

31. Faced with this either/or choice, I'm a movement liberal

But like most other issues there is some nuance involved here, however. I am no stranger to tactical thinking and I'm not totally opposed to all compromises.

Survey's a good idea. I'll check back for results later.

[kgnu_fan]

33. I have a problem with the word..."liberal" = highly supportive of state power

http://www.zcommunications.org/media-subdues-the-public-it-s-so-in-india-certainly-by-noam-chomsky

<snip>
Why do you say the idea of a liberal media is a myth?

Chomsky: I don’t. Some of my friends and colleagues do. My own view is that the media, the major media, the New York Times and so on, tend to be what is called liberal. Of course, liberal here implies highly supportive of state power, state violence and state crimes. I, though, don’t deny that liberal means, more or less, being in favour of civil rights, social programmes, roughly what’s called social democratic in much of the world.

Do you think the so-called liberal media really serves that purpose?

Chomsky: Yes, to some extent, but their major commitment is to the centres of power—state and private. For example, there are major attacks on civil rights today but because those are coming from the Obama administration, the liberal media barely discusses the violations.

[TheWraith]

39. I have a problem with Chomsky's definition.

It's grossly detached from traditional meanings of liberalism as being a support of individual rights, civil rights, and equality of opportunity. Chomsky's is a borderline right-wing definition of liberalism.

[kgnu_fan]

55. I prefer to be called "progressive" --- move forward....instead of spreading "liberty" like Bush

[TheWraith]

59. And I despise that as a weasel word, & giving the word liberal to the conservatives who tarred it.nt

[blondeatlast]

82. +1. nt

[Chan790]

112. I don't.

I'm a liberal. I hate progressive like I hate hell and sin. It's a slur and I will not have it applied to me.

[beforeyoureyes]

611. Chomsky is correct. I never will understand how atrocious policies decried when implemented by an R

Become tolerated or even venerated when they come from a D

I am not going to peg myself into these little holes. I am person who stands for truth and principle for they are the only way to good governance. If standing with a party compromises my ability to do that - then I stand with the lone few who operate on the 'fringe'.

Where all the revolutions stem from anyway...

[Iggo]

35. I usually choose the one with the most condescending definition...

...in these types of questions.

So, of course, Movement Liberal.

[EFerrari]

47. LOL

:)

[bigtree]

36. I think most folks are some of both

I'm sure I can be pinned down to one definition at some point or the other, I just don't think a responsible political participant should be tied down to either perspective.

At some point, our vital activism needs to adopt some sort of legislative approach to transform our idealism into action or law.

[Arkana]

42. Action liberal through and through.

Passion and idealism are great but they don't help people.

[RaleighNCDUer]

61. Passion and idealism set the goals -

and without goals you go nowhere.

[Arkana]

67. And without action, passion and idealism are exactly what Hillary people

derided Obama's speeches as during the primaries--just "pretty words".

[RaleighNCDUer]

74. Remind me = which got the nomination and won the election?

Passion and idealism, or DLC pragmatism?

[Arkana]

81. It's unfair of you to equate pragmatism with being a sellout

and the invocation of that tired old boogeyman "THE DLC" is becoming less and less effective in helping your case.

And I ask you: Passion wins elections, but what GOVERNS A COUNTRY?

[RaleighNCDUer]

83. How do you govern if you don't first win? nt

[Arkana]

243. That's kinda my point.

But governing and winning require two different philosophies, no matter how much some people wish it were different.

[MineralMan]

128. Well, in my case, it was the action liberal side of me

that helped here in Minnesota. I actually listened to Obama the candidate. I worked to get him elected, knowing full well that the change he was talking about was incremental change. He spoke very clearly about what his goals were and how he hoped to make them happen. Not idealism, but pragmatism. And so he behaves as President.

I also worked for Al Franken. He's less pragmatic, but has great ideas.

So, as usual, I'm idealistic when I think of ultimate goals, but pragmatic in moving toward them.

Change that moves toward the goals is always preferable to no change at all. Pie in the sky rarely appears on anyone's plate.

[EFerrari]

43. Jonathan Alter's terms reflect his preferences more than they reflect liberals.

And his comment that the essence of politics is self interest is also peculiar, debatable and his.

But while I disagree with both where and how he divides these groups, there do seem to be two and the two different sets of tactics come straight out of two different approaches to a problem, not because one side is pragmatic and the other is "dreamy". Having said that, it has seemed for some time that we have two groups of people who prefer two different modes of engagement and that's why I've suggested designating GD and GDP for those two distinct modes as a way to give people a safe and more cordial space to work a problem in the way that is more comfortable for them.

I don't identify with his weird and negative description of the group that isn't narrowly focused on policy.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

46. Yup...

It was the "dreamy" part that rubbed me the wrong way.

[bobbolink]

235. As well as the "illogical".

"Idiots", "Fucking Retards" "childish"

Can't forget "insane".

Those names are what kicked me out of the party.

Fuck it.

[MuseRider]

49. Good reply

and I agree with you.

[Odin2005]

52. Interesting point on the 'Self Interest" thing.

The notion that people always at their core are concerned about pure self-interest is a tenet of "Classical Liberalism" (AKA Libertarianism AKA Neo-Liberalism). That notion is also completely objectively false, falsified by decades of sociological, anthropological, psychological, and neuroscience research.

[EFerrari]

57. Stuff like that always sticks out for me

because I don't come from a nuclear family and my first thought usually isn't about me but about the group.

[Odin2005]

64. I come from a Scandinavian-American Lutheran environment with the same influence.

Selfishness and ego-centric behavior is frowned upon as antithetical to Minnesota Nice.

[EFerrari]

69. Minnesota Nice!

LOL

I love it. :)

[Odin2005]

76. Thanks! I ran into a study that says that Minnesotans are #1 in....

the Big Five Personality trait of Agreeableness, which is associated with friendliness, selflessness, charity, and empathy.

[bobbolink]

236. I *knew* we had a lot in common!

:pals:

[Odin2005]

254. Hi, Bobbo!

:hug:

One reason we are Liberal around here is that here homeless people would freeze to death in the winter without help! Hard winters remind folks that we are all in this whole shebang together and there ain't no escaping reality. :)

[bobbolink]

269. Maybe a factor. It is hard winter here, also, and "liberals" don't give a flying fuck about

anything except their own damned elitist selves.

As one pastor said to me last week, "this is why the phrase 'latte liberal' came to be."

:(

[laughingliberal]

274. Good post. It also says more about him than it does about those he seeks to describe. nt

[Go2Peace]

65. I agree. He essentially calls "movement liberals" impotent

So called "movement liberals" are not dreamers to the point of ineffectiveness, as this author essentially portays them.

I would catagorize it more like this:

"Systematic Liberals" - Believe in holding on and taking what gains they can, hoping to eventually find a way or build incrementally to get to truly liberal policies.

"movement liberals" - Believe that essentially the only effective way to make transformative and lasting change is to hold to strong principles and build the case.

While doing the "pragmatic" thing, we are actually losing, because our leadership looks weak and by compromising on most every point they lend some amount of credence to the opposition.

I don't understand why we still have not learned this. The evidence is right in front of us. The Republicans did not move "pragmatically". They stood hard and fast and claimed their ideology would work. Of course it doesn't. But by not capturing and leading when the opportunity came we are back to losing ground.

Because we have not built the case for progressive values, much of that "pragmatic change" can get wiped out in a single Republican administration.

Tell me, exactly how is the "pragmatic" compromise working out? Will it take another 30 years of this approach before we admit that it didn't work?

[EFerrari]

73. "Pragmatic" has come to mean "short term political gain", imo,

and short term political gain romanticized as virtue, at that.

[Odin2005]

79. And "rah-rah" sports-like cheerleading.

"Go Blue Team, Boo Red Team" :eyes:

[blondeatlast]

80. BINGO. nt

[Little Star]

491. yep!

[Odin2005]

78. I agree with you.

LBJ certainly was not being "pragmatic" when he signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. he even admitted that by signing the bill the South would be lost for a generation. But yet he DID THE RIGHT THING.

[suzie]

504. In 1964, the RIGHT THING was pragmatic.

LBJ was above all a pragmatic politician. The fabric of the nation was going to be torn apart by civil rights conflicts.

LBJ and other politicians recognized that and voted and signed accordingly.

From what I've read and heard about LBJ, there was a part of him that was genuinely idealistic, especially about civil rights, but the civil rights legislation was the act of an action politician, not a dreamer.

[DirkGently]

273. Excellent. This attempt at a false dichotomy is no better than the others we've seen.

[Gormy Cuss]

66. Yet again, I agree with you.

It's pretty clear from his characterization that "movement liberals" aren't good liberals.

Using Alter's definitions, this is an action liberal:



and this is a movement liberals:

[EFerrari]

86. There's something else here, too, and it shows up in those graphics.

The "pragmatists" tend to work more easily with a top-down organization where the pink pony people, lol, tend to be more comfortable with a bottom-up approach to problems.

This could be seen as an authoritarian/non-authoritarian split as much as anything else because action/movement doesn't work -- witness how telling "movement" people to shut up and fall in (the opposite of action, right?) has become a regular feature of our discussions.

[scarletwoman]

102. I think one way to see these distinctions is hierarchical and non-hierarchical.

Same as top-down/bottom-up, I suppose, but it goes a bit further in terms of distinguishising between where each faction holds to be the source of power -- the "archy".

sw

[EFerrari]

103. That is a much better construction, agreed.

:hi:

[scarletwoman]

132. It's still rather one-dimensional, though. I've mulled this over quite a bit over time, and

the fact is, I find trying to define the differences in worldviews by reducing them to a dichotomy is rather like attempting to reduce a polyhedron into two dimensions.

In the entire nine years I've been on DU I've observed that there have always tensions, disputes, and misunderstandings between the various modes of perception that people bring to bear on political questions.

I have variously seen them as a conflict between micro-oriented and macro-oriented modes of perception, or between surface-oriented and "deep politics"-oriented modes.

There are layers upon layers of dynamic forces at work in how power plays out in the world -- who wields it, who feeds it, who reacts to it, and in what forms.

What I see about people who are sort of in "our" camp here on DU, is that we tend to approach the question of political strategy, tactics, and action from a point of view that encompasses a very broad vision of humanistic/"liberal" priorities based on a generally holistic, multilayered worldview.

Which is probably why we drive the "pragmatists"/"Action Liberals" to screaming fits. :)

sw

[EFerrari]

138. Yep. For some reason, I keep remembering this pie chart I saw

in a teachers' seminar once. It was a chart of all the different ways people learn. It wasn't infinite but if a person is bent on teaching you something aurally and you're visual or if you learn through others or with your muscles or via touching, that person is going to be disappointed and frustrated.

:)

[scarletwoman]

157. Exactly! (nt)

[bobbolink]

239. Vertical leadership vs Horizontal leadership

I was paying close attention during my dirtyhippiepinkocommiebum days.

Too bad so many missed that.

This really is the split!

And we horizontals get the spit.

[Mimosa]

650. Graphic images on that order came to my subconscious too.

I hope the admins don't start labeling us D.U. members according to Alter's theory.

Because during certain moments in time a 'movement liberal' may behave as an 'action liberal.'

[scarletwoman]

91. Very well said. I especially like your idea of re-designating GD & GDP. nt

[nashville_brook]

248. couldn't agree more. "dreamy," really? moreover, "focus on POLICY" is even more inaccurate

wrt so-called pragmatists. the problem with the Dems since Clinton is we haven't produced policy consistent with rhetoric. it's one thing to make deals in order to get a better deal for working/middle class people -- it's another thing entirely to sell-out your constituents to the point of only being able to campaign on how awful the other party is.

[EFerrari]

364. You're right about the "focus on policy". That is the claim

and it's not true. Agreed.

[readmoreoften]

460. Yes, I'm glad he's come up with pet names for himself and the people he disagrees with.

It's like he invented these terms to prove that he's "still a liberal" or something. Painful to read.

[paulkienitz]

45. I think I'm honestly fifty-fifty on that.

[iamjoy]

50. Don't Let The Perfect...

Don't let the perfect be an enemy of the good is my philosophy, so I am an action Liberal.

Of course, others see it differently. And I recognize that such an attitude requires a strong influence by Movement Liberals to keep us moving in the right direction.

Here's how I see it, back in the early to mid nineteenth century, the activists for women and African Americans to have the right to vote were often one and the same, but not always. These were the "movement liberals." When the Civil War ended, "action liberals" gave African American men the right to vote, but basically shafted the women, because they didn't want to have that fight then and risk losing the gains made. Some probably weren't liberals at all and thought discrimination based on race wasn't okay, but discrimination based on race wasn't. So, in an attempt to get their votes...

Well, of course excluding gender/sex from the protections of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments was very bad, but I'm glad they at least got race in there. If it came to a choice between a 14th & 15th amendment that included women but didn't get ratified vs. what we have, I'll take the latter. So, we can thank the action liberals for that. However, we also must thank the movement liberals who inspired the social change, and kept up the fight for women to have those same rights.

Of course, it is often hard to tell what is "good" vs. "perfect" and whether or not my example of the 14th and 15th is a false dichotomy because the choice was never really there.

[rug]

53. Push Poll.

[RaleighNCDUer]

72. Yup.

[Enrique]

58. "About the DLC"

Movement liberals, aka f-ing retards: "focus on politcal messaging."
Action liberals, aka DLC: "ideas that can happen," "reforms that will work."

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=86

About the Democratic Leadership Council

While other organizations continue to focus on political messaging, the central mission of the new DLC will be to develop and fight for ideas that can happen and reforms that will work.

[demmiblue]

60. Unrec.

This will not end well.

:(

[struggle4progress]

63. I'm a "pliers" guy -- I want "pragmatic" and "movement" folk working together like a pair of pliers

to squeeze our opponents

The political and economic establishment has an inevitable inertia: it will always tend to run along the existing track, reinforced by monied interests and corporate media propaganda. Only people-power, set in motion by grassroots community organizing, can effectively confront that

Establishment inertia means that the fights for worker safety and security, environmental protection, social justice, and human rights will continue into the foreseeable future. We will always need a vision of where we would like to be, but the fights themselves involve pragmatic tactical and strategic planning, based on whatever resources we can actually muster and based on what progress we think we can actually make at a given moment

I have great respect for principled pragmatists. To proceed correctly, we need to build a large active grassroots movement of people who can analyze in detail various aspects of our current political and economic system, who have some organizing experience and some political experience, who are willing to compromise when necessary but will not compromise too much or too quickly

Two steps forward, one step back: all day, every day

[laughingliberal]

98. Excellent! nt

[blondeatlast]

104. So very, very true. "Two steps forward, one back..." is a good way to think

of it; I think the majority of DU thinks that way regardless of what label they may choose in this thread.

[EFerrari]

110. I guess I basically disagree with the designations.

The side of this dyad that is more active is not the side that waits for marching orders from a political hierarchy. Interacting with a political hierarchy is a valuable and useful but limited field of engagement and too often reduces otherwise resourceful people to spectators, not actors.

/grammar

[struggle4progress]

133. I didn't like the article much, so I toyed with its terminology and the underlying philosophy

I don't think we'll have the politics we want, unless we have a well-organized movement, but I don't think a movement alone can give us the results we want, unless the movement takes politics and politicians very seriously

It's folly to hope for progressive change coming down from the top of the political system -- but the top of the political system nominally controls the state, so one cannot ignore the top: one needs to put the right people in place there and then work with them or pressure them

[zenprole]

135. Outstanding

Alter provided a false dichotomy and the OP fell for it, but this response has rescued the topic. It's right on target. The proper framework is working within or outside the system (the election cycle and various institutions), but that leaves Alter and many DUers out in the cold because they are trained to observe etiquette and let someone else define a reality that bears suspicious resemblance to sheer fantasy.

Most of my posts here on DU are dedicated to smashing political etiquette and establishing bedrock reality, but that doesn't preclude the Democratic Party occasionally bringing something to the table. Show me action that isn't self-defeating and I'm on board. It's results that matter and, despite protests to the contrary, it's been a three decade/five president losing streak for workers and the poor. Movement types bring desperately-needed ideas to the table, but are ignored if not ridiculed. The 'results' that 'action liberals' produce easily fail rational inquiry.

Here's the punch line: the movement Left (a larger term which I think is accurate) is as disconnected from average people as orthodox liberals. Welcome to Weimar America.

[pinto]

71. I think that Liberalism needs both, fwiw - i.e. -

A train doesn't get from here-to-there without *both* a locomotive and a set of rails. :hi:

[hfojvt]

75. according to that definition

most of us cannot be "action liberals". We don't actually make deals or have big money connections. The only thing we can do is support or attack action liberals who get elected to office, or who run for office.

I am not against compromise, but don't care for a candidate with big money connections. Once a person starts taking money from big donors the question then becomes how much they really are on the side of those who are not big donors. The other part seems to be our party's lack of negotiating ability. When the other party asks for the moon, our party may negotiate them down to half of the moon, which is not a very satisfying result. Then when our party wants to do something it seems like we start from the position of half a loaf and by the time it finally gets passed it has been compromised down to just 1/10th of a loaf. Better than nothing, but, again, not very satisfying.

So, surprisingly perhaps, I am gonna identify with the movement liberals. My complaint is not so much with the ideology of the movement liberals here, but with their hyperbolic inaccuracy. For example, I have had to respond many times to DUers who claimed that "Democrats voted for the war in Iraq" or "Democrats voted for the Bush tax cuts". That any time three or more Democrats vote on the wrong side it becomes a reason to attack the entire Democratic Party.

[starroute]

84. I'm the third kind

I'd lost faith in both the short-sightedness of "movements" and the self-defeating pragmatism of inside-the-system types by about 1962.

My real heroes are the people who work steadily towards a goal without much concern for either the cause du jour or winning elections.

There are a fair number of them out there -- though you don't usually hear their names because they don't seek publicity or try to attract followers. But Jimmy Carter in his post-president days has been one of them. And though I don't know what Daniel Ellsberg has been up to before he recently surfaced to support WikiLeaks, he may be another.

[kgnu_fan]

89. yes, the third kind. transcending ever useless diad.

[cynatnite]

90. Alter also said that liberals are driving themselves off a cliff over a public option...

A public option is still a real possibility. He was wrong then and I don't think he's entirely accurate here.

[EFerrari]

99. Imo, Alter has an authoritarian chip on his shoulder but

he may very well need one to be in his business.

[sabrina 1]

109. He always did lol!

He likes his 'insider' position and you can't have that if you don't bash 'dreamy-eyed liberals' the same way the right does.

[KoKo]

299. Beg to differ...he had cancer...and he changed after that....

You can Google his cancer era. I defended him and trashed him further down the thread. Pragmatically I can see what he does.....My gut...causes me to have problems with him.

Just Google. If I have time I'll post about it on this thread...but most folks don't read beyond the first 25 posts unless they have a "war" agenda.

[sabrina 1]

330. I will read your post. But Alter supported the War in Iraq.

I am sorry to hear he had cancer but glad he has overcome it. However, many people have had health issues or other tragedies in their lives. Kucinich, eg, lost three of his siblings over the course of two years while he was fighting for a PO in Congress.

If Alter changed since the days when he supported Bush's aggressive, pre-emptive and wrong war in Iraq, I will be the first to be happy about that.

His support was based on accepting the lies told by the Bush administration. He believed that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons eg. Despite all the evidence provided, by people like Joe Wilson and others, that this was a lie.

Someone who could fall for those lies, especially at a time when what was needed, especially from people who had the kind of megaphone he had, to speak out strongly against what they were about to do, doesn't reflect a person who is capable of thinking for themselves.

He always appears to me to be an appeaser. Eg, while supporting Bush's war, he added that Bush went about it the wrong way. I guess that was meant to appease the left.

This country was at a crossroads back then. I remember well those who stood up and those who did not. Alter did not stand up. He fell for the lies. I have no idea if he has ever recanted his support as I rarely bothered reading him after that. He simply had no credibility.

If being willing to 'see the other side' and take 'action' such as writing columns in support of the war makes him an 'action liberal', then we would have to call a certain Democratic president who opposed the Iraq War in an eloquent speech around the same time, a 'movement liberal'.

Anyhow, off to read your post ....

[KoKo]

337. Sabrina...I wasn't defending him...just saying and I posted his Cancer event down thread..

I agree with you. I'm a private DU'er and don't post the stuff that's gone on with me or family in these years we've been through all of this. Much of this is normal through years that there would be illnesses and problems...but I do believe that STRESS causes some Bad Stuff that makes many of us who have "sensitivities" much more prone to have problems when others who aren't so sensitive seem to thrive and come through with MIRACLES... (think Dick Cheney or Rumsfeld/Bush and others who either have BIG Problem and find care...or NEVER have a problem).

I'm just saying that Alter had a problem and got helped out. After his Cancer his "Activist" stance seem to go more with "Status Quo." I don't know him...only know the reports about him...and I posted Downthread as to his cancer.

LIFE PROBLEMS can cause many of us to make "changes" in who we are an how we approach our lives going forward. For some it's changing to keep our jobs or status with our peers, for others ...they keep going where they were going or give up and find pleasure in something besides POLITICS.

It's hard to know which way it goes for us...it's individual... is what I'm trying to say..

[sabrina 1]

349. Sorry if I misunderstood you KoKo.

I've gone up and down the thread and have found several of your posts, but could not find the one about Alter's experience with cancer. Could you link to it as you can probably find it more easily than I?

I definitely agree that people can change after a life-altering experience and some don't. I would like to know where Alter stands on the war now, since there has been no doubt that all the reasons he based his support on, were completely discredited.

As I said, I rarely read anything he writes so I don't know where he stands now. All I know is whenever I saw that he was a guest on a TV talk show back when we were desperately trying to stop Bush's war, I used to cringe and could not believe he was supposedly on the left.

Anyhow, sorry again, I understand your point and was just pointing out that some people, like Kucinich eg, never changed his core values, no matter what was going on in his life. If Alter did, then I guess that would be an admission that he needed to change, and that would be a good thing. :-)

[KoKo]

353. I know...it's hard on these threads sometimes to understand where folks are coming from

and some of us more "private" often don't share stuff because it makes us seem vulnerable in a way we just don't want to deal with.

Here's the Alter article. There's more with Google..but this was where I saw Alter change to more Centrist/DLC...which I thought was to keep his reporting/writing life going.

LINK:

http://www.newsweek.com/2007/04/08/my-life-with-cancer.html


My Life with Cancer
(Page 1 of 7)
Jonathan Alter...

I took the call on my cell phone at the Starbucks in New York's Penn Station. It was from a doctor I barely knew telling me that a CT scan—ordered after three weeks of worsening stomach pain—showed a large mass in my abdomen, with what she said was "considerable lymph node involvement." I rubbed my eyes and sensed the truth instantly: cancer, and not one that had been detected early. I was 46 years old and had not spent a night in the hospital since I was born. Nonsmoker. No junk food beyond the occasional barbecue potato chips. Jogged a couple of times a week. I was not remotely ready for this.

It was Super Tuesday, March 2, 2004, the day voters would select most of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention. Although the complete diagnosis was still several days off, the intense abdominal pain meant that my wife, Emily, and I had no time to stop, absorb and adjust to our twisted new world. We immediately began negotiating the endless round of doctors' appointments and insurance hassles that mark a cancer patient's life. With my head on fire, I quietly endured a festive lunch with political reporters and anchors, then went back to work. My job that day was to analyze the end of John Edwards's presidential campaign.

Three years later, I'm in remission and, strangely enough, thinking once more about the future of Edwards and his family. Like the 10.5 million other cancer survivors in the United States, I experienced a bit of extra stress last week. When Elizabeth Edwards's breast cancer recurred in her bones and Tony Snow's colon cancer recurred in his liver, the cold fear that many of us live with every day crept a little closer. The good news is that the candor of Edwards and Snow (who is recuperating from surgery but has been open about his situation from his perch as White House press secretary) has helped stimulate a useful national conversation about how people handle a cancer diagnosis. It has also exposed the foolishness of a few busybodies who don't have cancer, but feel free to judge the complex choices made by those who do.

My own story isn't typical, because none is. Every patient reacts a little differently, both biologically and psychologically. The only constant in cancer is inconstancy; the only certainty is a future of uncertainty, a truism for all of modern life but one made vivid by life-threatening illness. According to the latest projections, a third of all Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point during their lifetimes, most likely when they're old. Many will never achieve remission at all, while the lucky ones like me get to live with a sword of Damocles hanging over our heads. A friend compares his semiannual scans to visiting a parole officer. When the scans are clean, it's worth another six months of freedom, though with no guarantee of extra time for good behavior

[sabrina 1]

524. Thank you

I have read the article. I did not know he had such a serious battle with cancer. Very glad he has beaten it hopefully for good.

I see from the article that he got the news in 2004 so I am not sure that this was what changed him. His support for the war came in 2003. As I said, I do not know how he reacted after it was proven that the entire enterprise was based on lies.

Anyhow, I am glad he has recovered. That has to be a devastating experience for anyonw.

[Mimosa]

651. I bet he had first class medical care

Unlike some of us who've had to drop our health insurance.

One would think such an experience would have made Alter more sympathetic to meaningful health care reform, including a public option.

[suzie]

621. Are you the same person who spoke disparagingly upthread about Democrats caving on women's

rights?

Who has one standard for those that she adores, whether they be long-dead or current politicians and those she abhors, like the president.

Jonathan Alter has suffered through cancer, but don't cut him any slack for that.

Righteously compare him to the PRINCIPLED Dennis Kucnich, who "never changed his core values, no matter what was going on in his life."

Except that for 30 years he was rabidly against women's rights and then POOF, he had a miraculous change of heart just when he decided to start his Presidential candidacy.

So if women's rights are not a core Democratic value, why did you even talk about Democrats caving on it upthread?

Just one more minor thing with which to bash the current president? Or perhaps a presidential candidacy is not like something "going on in his life"?

[sabrina 1]

635. What are you talking about? You seem confused.

Considering I supported the president, I do not know where you are coming from with your nasty comment.

Are you saying that once you support someone, no matter what they do, right or wrong, you should ignore it and just follow them no matter how wrong they are? If so, what a sad, old-fashioned way for a woman to think. I supported this president, therefore I expect MORE of him than of those I did not support. I expect more of those I respect and love in my personal life also and do not hesitate to be honest with them.

Jonathan Alter did not have cancer when he supported Bush's War and gave as his reasons, all the lies told by Cheney, Bush, Rice and the rest of the criminals who lied this country into war. Anyone naive enough, especially on the left, to fall for their obvious lies, was not someone back then whose opinions I respected.

Having cancer is tragic, both my father and mother died of cancer, also my grandmother, so I am more than familiar with the pain and heartbreak of the desease. How dare you suggest otherwise, you don't know me.

I am very glad that Alter has survived especially for the sake of his family and wish him a very long and healthy life. What does that have to do with his political opinions or my opinion of them? Are you saying that people should change their opinions just because someone becomes ill? How would that equate to 'giving them slack'? You are making NO sense.

Kucinich changed his mind about one issue. Obama has changed his mind about several issues. His excuse for that is 'my thinking has evolved' so he doesn't deny it, yet some of his supporters don't agree with him and insist he never changed his mind about anything. We just didn't hear him right. I'll take his word for it.

If I were to get down to your level of discourse I suppose I could suggest that you will support someone you 'adore' no matter what they do. But I'll leave the nastiness to you.

As for this: 'one more excuse to bash the president'. Please link to a post I have made 'bashing' the president. 'Bashing' not 'disagreeing'. I will check back for your proof of that statement.

[suzie]

645. "Nasty comment". I believe that would be calling Alter an "appeaser" while comparing him

twice with "never changed his core principles" Kucinich.

And then trying to reduce Kucinich's 30 year "appeaser" stance with the Catholic Church to "one issue". Kucinich supported legislation against women to appease the Catholic Church during the time that Karl Rove and other Republican activists were consolidating a political base by focusing on the gamut of anti-women's rights issues. Kucinich stood with Karl Rove and the Radical Right--not in just one decision like Alter, but for decades. He even voted against letting women in the military pay for their own abortions at overseas bases--that would seem to define "appeaser".

Then Kucinich showed himself to be the absolutely crass politician that he is by deciding that a different constituency needed appeasing, so overnight DK changed one of his core principles and became pro-women's rights.

When he was desperate for adding to his tiny fraction of the Democratic electorate, Kucinich pandered to another constituency by talking about running for the presidency with a known racist and old time KKK sympathizer. Talk about "appeaser".

I simply thought that you did a disservice to Alter by continuing to compare him with a crass politician like Kucinich. Especially when you're talking about 2003--when there were far more principled politicians than Kucinich running for the presidency--well, at least one.

[H2O Man]

92. Other.

I am a Progressive Democrat. I like most liberals, though, and tend to respect them as individuals and as a group.

[boston bean]

96. please define progressive democrat. and what makes them different from liberals

This is an honest question. Not trying to put you on the spot, but I am truly interested.

I think many people ascribe labels to themselves and don't have an understanding of what they are, or the label changes.

[H2O Man]

113. Sure.

I go by the definitions that my grandparents (and their parents) went by. Liberals are people who believe that "the system" can be fine-tuned to be more fair to everyone. Progressives believe that the basic structure of the current system must be radically changed. Liberals are part of the democratic left, between moderates and progressives on social-economic-political issues. Progressives are the further democratic left, and overlap with those on the left of the Democratic Party.

A good illustration can be found in the career of Robert Kennedy. As a young adult, he was a conservative democrat. While serving in his brother's administration, he began to have some more moderate, and even somewhat liberal, positions. From '64 to '66, he became fairly liberal. In the final year of his life, Senator Kennedy began to take a progressive position on a number of issues, ranging from poverty to the need to admit serious errors in Vietnam, and to end the war.

Likewise, with Dr. King, we can see a person who was liberal through much of his adult life, but who from '66 to '68 became a true progressive.

I never feel put on the spot. Please feel free to ask me any question, any time.

[QC]

116. +1

[H2O Man]

264. Thanks, QC !

I think that DU's "old-timers" get it.

[QC]

271. And thank you so much for laying it out so clearly.

I am so tired of being told that calling oneself progressive is just a way to avoid being accused of liberalism.

The people who say that all the time really need to log off for a bit and go read some American political history.

[EFerrari]

127. Always appreciate you taking time to lay things out, H20 Man.

Thank you.

[H2O Man]

261. And I always both

appreciate and absolutely enjoy reading your contributions on a thread such as this. Keep up the good work.

[scarletwoman]

151. That's exactly how I've always seen the difference between "progressive" and "liberal".

I've never seen "progressive" as a cop-out word for people who worry about the label "liberal" having a negative connotation.

There was a clearly defined Progressive movement in the late 1800s and early 1900s that epitomizes how I've come to see the meaning of "progressive". It's not a synonym or substitute for "liberal".

Thank you for your excellent post.

sw

[H2O Man]

262. Thank you.

I think this little segment is the most accurate and important on this thread.

[boston bean]

162. Well, hells bells! I have always just called myself a liberal based on what I know

to or think I know to be liberal policy. But maybe I ought to give the politica/historical meaning a little more thought.

Thanks for the reply!

[H2O Man]

192. Glad to have

the opportunity to discuss these things. I note other friends are also interested in this.

When I was young, I loved hearing my father and the family elders talk about this. They were Irish immigrants and first-generation Americans, and all of them were both pro-union and pro-public education.

At one point, my grandfather had a construction company, in Nutley, NJ, and he had contracts in NY when FDR was governor. At the time, FDR had Leland Olds running the state's Power Authority. I think that Olds is one of the more important examples of a true progressive. He would later work for FDR, heading the Federal Power Commission.

Many democrats and republicans in DC hated and feared Olds, who had been a railroad union advocate in earlier times. Olds recognized the federal government was in an improper relationship with the railroad tycoons; as the head of the NYPA and USFPC, he saw the undemocratic control being exercised by oil/power interests. He was viciously attacked under FDR, but Roosevelt stuck by him. Under Truman, a Texas political operative known as LBJ undercut him, and put him out of office.

FDR was a great liberal, who took many progressive positions. Olds was a true progressive, who served in FDR's liberal administrations. My father said that Olds was often smeared, being called a socialist and a Marxist. My father remembered him as the man who brought electricity to the homes of the poor, and who paid a price for sticking up for the working class.

[KoKo]

319. Anecdotally.. My father was a Racist Southerner..worked his way through Georgia Tech

to get his Engineering Degree and graduated in 1933 at the height of the Depression...when engineering jobs were not available. He worked hard labor in the Dixie Crystals Sugar Plant in Savannah, GA where he said he put his handkerchief over his nose and mouth to keep from ingesting the dust (he was an early enviro guy..worker safety, etc) and he sweated in the heat shoveling the cane into the vats and the rest.

He was a racist to the day he died....but he said that FDR...SAVED AMERICA... He was a listener to "Father Coughlin" on the radio...and that influenced him until he dies at 98 years Old...but he Supported Roosevelt and the Democratic Party until the day he died...and voted EVERY ELECTION and took me to to the polls with him when I was growing up...telling me that "your vote is the ONLY WAY you will be represented...and you need to do it even when it doesn't work out the way you hope."

He hated Republicans but called Black People in SC... "NIGGERS"....he was a weird bird.. Took out his oil tanks during the Oil Embargo with Carter...and chopped his own wood for his Wood Stove so that he could be "Energy Independent." He separated his Garbage..and in the rural area he lived he buried the cans and stuff that wouldn't burn...but every night he lit a fire and burned the paper stuff. He didn't realize that the paper stuff put stuff into the air......But, where he lived there was NO Municipal Garbage Collection and Burning and Burying is what folks did who had a few acres in those years even up until now...

I could write more about the contrasts in my father's personality...but it's painful to me. He was born in 1908 and more akin to the contrasts and ambiguities of those born then (like Senator Robert Byrd ...that DU'ers like to now Trash) so he lived from the time of parents born into Reconstruction from the Civil War and through the Great Depression where he worked on "Co-Op Program" to get through Georgia Tech in that trying time.

Not everyone is all EVIL...who lives in the South...and even though my father was a rasict....he had another side to him..that was a total Environmentalist...a forerunner to the most avid recyclers and energy efficient folks you would ever see in the Enviro Movement that he guided me to.

We have lost those folks who are dead now..who served in wars and tried to make a better life for themselves through the darkest times.

I have never gotten over my father's "mixed messages" to me growing up... It's only that the older I grow the more I see things that I was angry with him about are more nuanced and shaded than I earlier thought. I can never forgive him for his racisism..but.. I've come to see how old he was...and I also see how very Conflicted he was...and that in many ways (I haven't posted here, he was torn about what he thought was the right thing to do...but in the end...he did always do it..and he wasn't really the racist I thought he was...he bloviated about it...because of the wrath of the Southern Thing)

BUT... My FATHER WAS A ROOSEVELT NEW DEALER...He DEFENDED FDR..who in his Opinion SAVED THE SOUTH until his death. JUST SAYING....Some people are many contrasts and a conundrum..for their children and their own lives. Some of us deal with this these days, also...I think.

[Mimosa]

652. KoKO, your father's votes for FDR helped save this country!

Thanks for the wonderful story. Roosevelt understood the travails of ordinary people because of his illness and his visits to Warm Springs.

BTW, "Warm Springs" starring Kennethe Branagh and Cynthia Nixon (as FDR and Eleanor)is a wonderful movie. Anybody who hasn't seen it, should.

[bobbolink]

244. Between those two, I am a progressive. What I really am is a RADICAL.

From the old definition.... getting to the root (radix) of the issue.

[H2O Man]

265. Correct.

This is a fascinating thread. I think that the real democratic left of DU stands out, and that the moderate-to-conservatives here do not understand -- or care to understand -- our positions. And I do not to "name names" .... some things stand out here.

[bobbolink]

268. Fascinating and helpful. It fully explains to me why I am so often told to "get off your pampas

ass" (yes, moran spelling at DU... what a concept)and DO something" when they haven't any notion at all of the magnitude of my project.

It really does explain the extend of the ignorance. And the disdain.

[JNelson6563]

496. "Stands out"

Well first I think many here are left that you might be leaving out. But those you are crediting with being "left" are surely standing out as you say. The nastiness is glaring. So odd to see one as pragmatic as yourself sucking up to the nasty bunch but there it is.

Julie

[H2O Man]

500. Hi, Julie

I don't think that I "suck up" to anyone. My interpretation of what goes on here on this forum is often very different than other people's. And the same holds for things outside of DU, as well as the overlap between the two. For example, I can disagree, strongly, with the article the OP is based upon, but still say that I consider Alter's book The Promise" to be extremely valuable. I recommend it, especially to those who are frustrated with President Obama.

There is far too much "nastiness" on this forum. No one group has a monopoly on it. Too many of us -- including myself -- find it toxic but still contribute to it, and so it grows in force. And there are people on both sides of this current debate who appear invested in stirring the pot. A few may actually be looking to disrupt DU, but most are probably people who are simply channeling their internal nastiness.

I view myself differently than many here obviously do. I don't think I'm a "suck up." I don't think of myself as a nasty, mean person, though more than a few people here have told me that they do. My role, as it was given to me by Chief Waterman, is to organize and advocate for the outcasts of society. Having been an outcast my entire life, that seems a good fit. In the context of the Democratic Party, that means organizing and advocating for the democratic left .....and those to the left of the Democratic Party, as well as those who are in our societies' margins, unaware that their voice either has value or can combine with others to help institute change.

It is my hope that we are on the same side. I'm not saying that to "suck up" to you or anyone else.

[Lasher]

323. OK, so I have a question for you.

Of the two categories described in the OP (Action Liberal or Movement Liberal), if you had to pick only one to best describe yourself, which would you choose?

[H2O Man]

378. I couldn't.

I'm not a liberal. It's not a group that I identify with.

But -- and I think (hope) that I understand your question -- in terms of a similar question concerning what type of Progressive I am, I'd say this: there are some issues that I take very strong, no compromise positions on; there are others that I appreciate can only be approached one step at a time; and there are some that I accept are beyond my ability to influence.

In the context of this thread, I'd note that over he years I've been here, the progressive/liberal majority that existed in 2003 has been watered down. There are many more moderate-conservative democrats here. I consider that a far more significant description than Alter's action/movement groupings.

I do think that there should be more appreciation for the different approaches. I consider many moderates here to be good friends, just as in "real" life I have moderate family and friends. I even have some casual friendships with conservative democrats, on about the same level as with moderate republicans (all of whom are old folk). It would be beneficial if more people understood, for example, the potential for a more unified approach between progressives and liberals. It's in all of our best interests to let our political-social opposition know that if they don't do business with moderates -- such as President Obama -- that there are other forces waiting in the wings, ready and willing to take the struggle to a higher level.

[Lasher]

598. Cop out.

Come on, you're not stupid. You know that in this context the liberal label is meant to include progressives. Stop being so special just for a minute and weigh in.

[H2O Man]

601. I did.

And no, I do not think that Alter was including progressives. I do not see any evidence that he views progressives as part of the Democratic Party.

More, I do not consider myself "special" in this context. I think that a significant number of DU members are progressives. It would be, in my opinion, "stupid" to confuse them with liberals, including attempting to fit them into Mr. Akter's very limited groupings.

I've spoken openly on this forum about both my beliefs and quite a few of the political-social activities I have engaged in. I have no desire to try to fit into Alter's groups, and think it's "stupid" for others to accept such restrictive definitions as Alter presents. Much of this thread demonstrates why. There is a large amount of concrete, black and white thinking here, and no doubt people who decide on their own which of Alter's realities that I and other progressives belong to.

[Tatiana]

383. Teddy Roosevelt was on to something with his Progressive Party.

Imagine, that as early as 1912, there was actually a party with a platform that included: a National Health Service, the precursor to social security, (Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled), workers' comp, an inheritance tax, a federal income tax, women's suffrage, strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions, and strong federal regulation of corporate trusts/monopolies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912)

Progressivism, in some cases, can be as radical as the "Radical Republicans" of old. Progressives seek to truly deliver beneficial change that improves the lives and well-being of everyone.

[Ignis]

641. As always, who needs a hammer when H20 Man is around?

Since he so often hits the nail on the head on the first go. ;)

[KoKo]

305. I just am giving the link to Jonathan Alter's Cancer. Here:

http://www.newsweek.com/2007/04/08/my-life-with-cancer.html


My Life with Cancer
(Page 1 of 7)

I took the call on my cell phone at the Starbucks in New York's Penn Station. It was from a doctor I barely knew telling me that a CT scan—ordered after three weeks of worsening stomach pain—showed a large mass in my abdomen, with what she said was "considerable lymph node involvement." I rubbed my eyes and sensed the truth instantly: cancer, and not one that had been detected early. I was 46 years old and had not spent a night in the hospital since I was born. Nonsmoker. No junk food beyond the occasional barbecue potato chips. Jogged a couple of times a week. I was not remotely ready for this.

It was Super Tuesday, March 2, 2004, the day voters would select most of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention. Although the complete diagnosis was still several days off, the intense abdominal pain meant that my wife, Emily, and I had no time to stop, absorb and adjust to our twisted new world. We immediately began negotiating the endless round of doctors' appointments and insurance hassles that mark a cancer patient's life. With my head on fire, I quietly endured a festive lunch with political reporters and anchors, then went back to work. My job that day was to analyze the end of John Edwards's presidential campaign.

Three years later, I'm in remission and, strangely enough, thinking once more about the future of Edwards and his family. Like the 10.5 million other cancer survivors in the United States, I experienced a bit of extra stress last week. When Elizabeth Edwards's breast cancer recurred in her bones and Tony Snow's colon cancer recurred in his liver, the cold fear that many of us live with every day crept a little closer. The good news is that the candor of Edwards and Snow (who is recuperating from surgery but has been open about his situation from his perch as White House press secretary) has helped stimulate a useful national conversation about how people handle a cancer diagnosis. It has also exposed the foolishness of a few busybodies who don't have cancer, but feel free to judge the complex choices made by those who do.

My own story isn't typical, because none is. Every patient reacts a little differently, both biologically and psychologically. The only constant in cancer is inconstancy; the only certainty is a future of uncertainty, a truism for all of modern life but one made vivid by life-threatening illness. According to the latest projections, a third of all Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point during their lifetimes, most likely when they're old. Many will never achieve remission at all, while the lucky ones like me get to live with a sword of Damocles hanging over our heads. A friend compares his semiannual scans to visiting a parole officer. When the scans are clean, it's worth another six months of freedom, though with no guarantee of extra time for good behavior

[H2O Man]

379. I really like Alter.

Not that I've ever met him. But I like the majority of his writings. The OP stuff isn't among his best, in my opinion. It appears to be more of an expression of his frustration that everyone doesn't view things his way. But it doesn't change my high opinion of much of his work; we are all human.

[KoKo]

386. True...as I tried to state...however

following throughout the years where he started off vigorously opposing NAFTA and even appeared in a Hearing about his opposition (taking him out of journalistic impartiality realm) and then his career afterwards.... I think he fights with himself about where his true conscience lies. After his cancer he became more "neutral" on Progressive issues as if he was censoring himself..then he became a person to be called on in the media for appearances as his "new self" after the cancer. Sometimes to me he waffles like Juan Williams did. But, so far he has not taken a salary or had major appearances on Fox News (that I know about...but I don't watch it...just get updates from DU'ers about who appears there) so I assume he is now pretty moderate and given his access to Obama Administration to do a Bob Woodward with his new book, I've got to figure he would now call himself a "centrist." Or position himself that way...so I read him now as that and not the person he was in the early days of Clinton Administration when he was younger and healthy and was more free. Or, perhaps it wasn't the cancer but just that he grew older and more conservative. I still put it with his cancer and who helped him and who kept in in a job or gave him a job that might have had some input into his current writings.

That's all I'm saying. And, I do read him and am glad to hear what he says even when I don't agree with his apologia's sometimes. The choice of "dreamy idealist" does seem that he chose that phrase because he might have once been one, but now feels that "pragmatism" is the way to go forward... giving HIS view as to how much Democrats can expect to gain going forward...given what's gone on before.

EDIT: Sorry for so many edits...I'm tired and the typing is coming through with too many typo's in my thoughts. Had to correct some that I caught. There are probably others.

[Touchdown]

100. I'm definitely in the latter camp.

I can get along and work with action liberals, if there is a modicum of mutual respect, but I have no patience for authoritarians who seek to force me into line and toe their demands. I've met more than a few "action liberals" who are also bossy little authoritarians. As a hopeless rebel, they make me seethe, and fight back even if I agree with them. Republicans order the troops to fall in line. Liberals don't do that, and should never fall into that trap, regardless of political climate, or what can or can't be accomplished.

If I wanted to be told what to do, how to think, and what agenda to support, I would've been a Republican instead.

[nashville_brook]

314. really good points -- but I would add that even the repugs aren't falling for The Party Or Else BS

hence, the teabaggers.

[madfloridian]

107. "dreamy idealists"...Alter presents a negative picture of idealists in one word choice.

Amazing how he does that.

[Hissyspit]

115. Mmm...

Looks like a fairly false dichotomy to me.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

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

[EFerrari]

121. By your own logic, that makes you a "movement" liberal for casting asparagus

in Skinner's thread. :evilgrin:

[NJmaverick]

149. Deductive fallacy

look it up :hi:

[EFerrari]

154. Irony meter IED.

:)

[NJmaverick]

161. You didn't look it up

x(

[EFerrari]

174. You really don't need me in this exchange. Have a good one. n/t

[Fumesucker]

150. Yeah, that's why "movement liberals" have been described as "wanting a pony"...

"Bitter", "spiteful" and a wide variety of other insulting and demeaning terms, because "action liberals" are so interested in keeping the coalition together. :eyes:

Not to deny that there is a fair bit of mud slinging coming from the "movement liberals" aimed the opposite way also.

[NJmaverick]

158. I can't seem to find those comments in this thread

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

159. Did you read the article? n/t

[NJmaverick]

164. Yes, did you?

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

170. Yep. Alter broadbrushes people who do not share his priorities

as well as people who do not agree with his way of organizing a political response.

[NJmaverick]

173. I disagree, he made a good faith effort to describe the divide

and he did a very good job of it, in my opinion.

[EFerrari]

178. Yes. It was dreamy. n/t

[bobbolink]

247. !!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Fumesucker]

166. Where did I mention this particular thread?

Those terms have been used regularly here on DU, regularly enough that I've cut my reading and posting here by about ninety percent over the last few weeks.

I'm really quite exhausted with the whole thing, caring about politics has done nothing for me but screw up my relationships with a large number of people here in my deep red state, it damn sure hasn't gotten me any ponies.

ETA: And then I come on DU and get abuse from others who are ostensibly on the same side as I am.

[NJmaverick]

169. I made it clear I was talking about this thread, as it provided a good view

of the current situation.

[Fumesucker]

179. Strangely enough, this is not the only thread on DU..

And I have seen plenty of abuse, insults and snark coming from both sides over the last twenty months or so.

[NJmaverick]

182. Both sides does not mean it has been equal in quantity

[Fumesucker]

187. The perception of such is highly subjective though..

And I really have no idea which side actually is the more likely to be insulting, I know what my perception is but as I point out that is prone to extremely subjective judgment.

[NJmaverick]

Hence the use of this thread to measure

[Fumesucker]

190. At the moment it seems rather evenly matched..

With a substantial minority disagreeing with either term.

And the OP wasn't really about name calling or insults.

[NJmaverick]

Matched how? The only side attacking the other is the movement side

[NJmaverick]

194. Matched how? The only side attacking the other is the movement side

[Fumesucker]

203. Human perception is remarkably molded by expectations..

We often literally cannot see something if we do not expect to see it.

And I was talking about the poll results in the OP.

[NJmaverick]

205. Nice try, but you know my point is valid

[Fumesucker]

213. You know better than I what I was referring to in my post?

I'm not a believer in ESP so I find that impossible to credit.

[bobbolink]

251. .

[NJmaverick]

280. Perhaps you can show a single post of an action liberal attacking

[bobbolink]

292. No, not a single one.

There are THOUSANDS.

And all you have to do is look at the public ones, and how they get copied here.

"Idiots" "Insane" "Childish" "Whiners" and our all-time fave... "Fucking retards".

Which gets reduced here to "wahhhhh, she didn't get her pony, waaahhhhh"

No amount of trying to respond in a civil manner moderated the vindictive language, so we came to respond in turn. How is that working out for you?

[scarletwoman]

304. Sure. Happy to oblige.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9378544&mesg_id=9380292

[Touchdown]

318. LOL!

It's too easy sometimes, isn't it?:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

372. I asked for one directed at the Movement liberals

you must have misunderstood my request

[scarletwoman]

382. Your exact request was: "Perhaps you can show a single post of an action liberal attacking"

That's the entire subject line of your post #280, and there was no text in the message body.

If you look at my reply post #304 you will see that it clearly shows that it is Response to Reply #280.

I misunderstood nothing.

[NJmaverick]

486. So pointing out a failure to explain a position is "attacking"

if only you held the movement liberals to such a high standard:eyes:

[Ignis]

642. !

:spray:

[Ignis]

640. ...You mean the thread started by Skinner?

:rofl:

Yeah, I'm sure DUers are lining up to strongly disagree with one of the site Admins. That's gone over swimmingly in the past, after all.

[sabrina 1]

354. Do you think supporting the War in Iraq in 2003

was a good way 'to keep the coalition together'?

Mmm, I don't mean Bush's coalition of the bribed. I mean the one you appear to be talking about.

Alter supported the war in iraq, just FYI. And explained his 'action' by listing all the lies told by Bush/Cheney/Condi et al. Mushroom clouds, Uranium from Niger etc.

Since Alter seems to view himself as an 'action liberal' I just wondered what HE had ever done to unite liberals/progressives/democrats. He certainly acted, he was all over TV at the time, supporting the war. It was cringe-inducing for those of us who knew we were being lied to.

Ever since then, I never thought of him as having much credibility. But maybe to those identifying themselves as 'action liberals' he makes sense? Was that support the 'pragmatic thing to do' at the time? To keep your insider status? After all, look what happened to Ashley Banfield and other 'dreamy-eyed' 'movement liberals'. They were just whining I guess?

[NJmaverick]

375. What are you talking about? Most action liberals, myself included, opposed

the Iraq war

[sabrina 1]

418. I'm responding to the comment you made about Alter

wanting to keep the coalition together ... he supported Bush's war. I asked how that worked to keep the coalition together. Of course that was in 2003 when there was a united Left and no such thing as 'action/movement liberals' or 'pragmatic/idealistic liberals'.

And no, not all 'action liberals' (not that I accept that label, but it's Alter's) were against the war. There were plenty of Democrats, including in Congress, who supported it AND voted for it. Those politicians paid a price politically later on. Hillary, eg, might have won the nomination had she not been a war supporter. There was no way I would have ever supported anyone who supported that massive crime.

So, Alter views himself as an 'action liberal'. I would agree. Action is great when it's good action. Bush was probably an 'action conservative'. But I don't think any decent human being would think that that was a good thing. Movement conservatives, otoh, at least got some things right, like the Iraq War.

[Ignis]

643. So, you're saying the (D)s in Congress who voted for the IWR...

...are all "Movement" Liberals rather than "Action" Liberals?

That's an interesting assertion. Have any proof?

[Name removed]

461. Deleted message

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

[NJmaverick]

539. Not shockingly another personal attack from a movement liberal

it seems to be their bread and butter approach :eyes:

[YOY]

535. OMG!!! I can TOTALLY resurect the "taking it back" dance again now that you're doing it!

Will you watch me and my crew perform it this time? OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE!!!

[NJmaverick]

537. Another personal attack from the movement liberals

oh so typical :eyes:

[YOY]

541. I would NEVER personally attack you Mav! I'm your greatest fan!!!

Never never never never!!!

[NJmaverick]

543. Are you in need of attention?

:hug:

Is that enough or ate you in need of more?

[YOY]

545. Ohhhh!! I feel some much more is needed!

But bless you for that little show of affection! :cry: :cry: Bless you for your pittance of smiley emoticon kindness!!!

I'll never forget that!!! :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

So do you want to see that dance or not???

[TexasObserver]

119. Action Liberal. Nail down the best deal. Work for next time.

Idealism is a luxury of youth. When you have to get a job done, you learn to get your best deal and reload for next time.

[mkultra]

120. why do i sense Skinner is attempting to tell us something with this poll

Action for me, btw.

[MineralMan]

131. I think he's telling us where he is on the spectrum.

Same thing most of the people in the thread are doing. I'm not sure it goes beyond that.

[Skinner]

140. Believe it or not, the point of this was not to push a particular side.

Although I think anyone who has paid any attention could probably figure out that I tend toward the "I'll take whatever incremental change we can get" (Action Liberal) camp.

My interest was twofold:

1) Whether the names "action liberal" and "movement liberal" might be names that people could accept (even if they don't accept Alter's descriptions). And...

2) What percentage of DUers would identify with each side.

[MineralMan]

143. I have no trouble at all in believing that.

That seems to be consistent with what I've seen of your writings here on DU. As I do with everyone, I try to assume that a person is saying exactly what they write here, without subterfuge or hidden agendas. I'm an "action liberal" myself. Always have been. I have a clear image of what the ideal is, but I realize that it's usually out of reach, so I'm in favor of whatever moves towards it. It's the only thing I think makes any sense.

I'd rather help some people, even though others are not helped, than help nobody at all. It's that simple.

[EFerrari]

152. The problem is in calling one side "action liberals" because it implies

the other group is not active or not effective or something. There must be a better descriptor.

What we seem to be skirting is the difference between people who would rather work pretty strictly (but not exclusively) with party politics, with the hierarchy that involves v. people who are more apt to engage in social justice actions (with the decentralization that involves).

They're two different but potentially overlapping and complimentary modes. In a way, we're talking about framing activism in a way people can accept and respond to in a positive way.

[MineralMan]

165. I don't know. It seems like a reasonable pair of labels to me.

For me, immediate results in a direction are more important than the final goal. Ideals seldom are achieved in toto, as far as I can tell.

Someone used Martin Luther King as an example in an earlier post. He was an example. He had an ideal vision, but he worked to make steady changes toward that vision. In that sense, he was an action liberal. As it turned out, we're still working on getting his vision in place, long after his assassination. Few ideals are realized in a single stroke. In fact, I can't think of any major social reforms that were realized quickly. Each has taken decades to realize, and some are never fully realized.

[EFerrari]

172. Yes, I'm sure the labels make sense to you. Thanks. n/t

[MineralMan]

183. Thank you. I'm glad my position is being seen clearly.

[H2O Man]

234. I agree 100%

[Hissyspit]

246. Not accepting.

I spent the last 15 or so years learning the 3- and even 4-dimensionality of political ideology and activity (and resultant terminology). Alter's linear dichotomy is too simplistic and, as you've noted, reflective of his personal biases to an extent that it's not very effective. It's like saying all visual art is either representational or abstract - kernels of truth in there, but ultimately deceivingly simplistic.

[TexasObserver]

391. I thought your intent was readily apparent.

Your OP made the point that the main line of division we see on the GD board is that between those who think of themselves as pragmatic liberals versus those who think of themselves as idealistic liberals.

It is obvious this divide exists, and the gulf between those views is present in most major fire fights in GD.

Your OP seemed a way of suggesting that posters realize where they are in that self analysis, and in doing so realize why they may disagree strongly with another progressive on key aspects of pursuing the same goals.

The crux of the battle between Action liberals and Movement liberals is a disagreement about tactics, not politics. The goals are largely the same. It's how best to get there where the agreement breaks down. Action liberals will compromise. Movement liberals think not compromising is the best way to achieve the goals.

[DevonRex]

585. My problem is that I don't see them as mutually exclusive. And I

don't care for the descriptions much, either. The names are fine. And I'm all for incremental change if that's all we can get. And with this form of government, that IS all we'll ever get.

[mkultra]

141. seems like he is telling us that we need to understand our differences

and respect them.

[bobbolink]

222. Definitely.

In the category of a push-poll.

[mkultra]

228. which im fine with.

[bobbolink]

259. Which would go with the definition.

The "pushing" part.

[grahamhgreen]

122. Looks like a divide and conquer meme, to me.

It's not action if you're doing the wrong actions, and heading down the wrong path.

[sabrina 1]

139. Yep, and it's done every couple of years or so.

I remember weeks of division over the last pundit who asked the question 'Pragmatism or Idealism'. It was obvious then too where the writer was coming from

These kinds of divisive tactics may be intended to make people unite, I really don't know, but in Alter's case, it's pretty obvious he would like everyone to agree with HIM! Lol!

I prefer to ask people such questions as:

1) Do you support Torture?

2) Should all criminals, including those on Wall St., War criminals etc be subject to our laws?

If yes to #2, is it worth fighting for?

Etc. And justice delayed is justice denied someone once said, ask those who are denied justice and I think they'll agree and feel better about the 'dreamy eyed' liberals trying to push hard to get that justice, NOW.

In my experience, every time I've seen these kinds of questions asked, it is to try to excuse a LACK of action on major issues, such as war crimes, on the part of those described as 'action liberals' and silence those who believe there simply are no excuses for war crimes, or economic crimes etc. and no time for those being tortured eg, to wait. Alter can be pragmatic about these things as he's not sitting in isolation being beaten and tortured every day. I think we should ask the tortured about 'pragmatism' and 'waiting for the right time' to 'push these dreamy-eyed' ideals.

The Left and the Right are divided I thought, because we care about justice, they don't. Why isn't Alter drawing his dividing line between 'Left' and 'Right'?

I voted 'other' ~

[grahamhgreen]

399. Excellent analysis - i voted other as well.

[Lithos]

124. It is a great read

And one which should prompt some navel gazing by people to better understand exactly what their position is and what such a position implies in the greater body politik.

I personally would have made the distinction between heart-based Liberalism and mind-based liberalism, but that probably is tainted by my own position.

L-

[sabrina 1]

153. You didn't say which side should do some naval gazing.

However, I think the fact that you see sides among democrats as a result of this column, proves that all it does is divide. As I said above, Alter is not the first to do this. It has been done to the 'left' in many forms, 'Pragmatism V Idealism' etc. He's never been very original so it's not a surprise, but I thought we had worked this out and decided that dividing the left was not 'pragmatic'.


Why doesn't he write about the Right and the Left? If we are such a Big Tent, then there is surely room for the two sides he apparently sees?

I voted 'other'. Never did like labels as they are so faulty as to be useless. No one person is all things that either label suggests. So, it is a faulty premise aside from causing people to think that way and thus divide the left. Sometimes I wonder if that is not the goal of these kinds of labels. If the left is divided, the right wins. It's that simple really.

[Lithos]

257. The answer is easy

Everyone should...

I actually chose words other than Pragmatic and Idealistic on purpose as I think that debate is not the one on the table as for one thing, it implies people prefer different outcomes. Rather, I see most people having the same goal, but differ as to the urgency, method (and timeline). My use of heart and mind is very much the same as used in Vietnam of winning hearts and minds and refers to the motivations and deeds/actions necessary. There are those who want something, but have no actionable plan while there are those who are busy doing things but have no real motivation. Winning requires both - the last time I saw this in combination was the election of Obama.

I also think people are not uniform but change for each issue.

[sabrina 1]

303. Thank you for your response.

Agree for the most part.

My use of heart and mind is very much the same as used in Vietnam of winning hearts and minds and refers to the motivations and deeds/actions necessary. There are those who want something, but have no actionable plan while there are those who are busy doing things but have no real motivation. Winning requires both

Yes, winning does require both, I agree. That is why I do not like Alter's (and others' who have tried this black and framing) labels. If we are going to use labels, there are far more than just two that would be needed to properly describe 'liberals' in general.

[chimpymustgo]

263. The dichotomy is between those who have LIBERAL PRINCIPLES and those who want to TINKER AT THE EDGES

of reform to keep the PEOPLE from taking to the STREETS.

[girl gone mad]

384. correct.

[Catherina]

605. +1. Correct! n/t

[bobbolink]

136. Funny, I thought broad-brushing was against DU rules.

[MineralMan]

155. Oddly, I didn't get any sense of broad-brushing in the OP.

It seems a good question, and the poll results seem to show that DU is about equally distributed among people who self-describe as one or the other. It confirms what I've seen here, too. I think the point is that we need to stop and look at results, rather than fight it out over theory. Strategic thinking, rather than tactical maneuvers seems like a better approach to me over the long term.

[EFerrari]

167. No, the poll shows that there is a significant amount of posters

who do not agree with Alter's terms.

Did you read the article, btw?

[MineralMan]

184. I did read the article, thanks.

I always read the article. It's what I do in threads where I'm posting.

[MineralMan]

204. It shows that as well. Just about 40-40-20.

I can see the poll results as well as you can. Thanks.

[bobbolink]

168. I wouldn't expect you to.

Your side has engaged in the name-calling, which you deem acceptable, so I'm sure it's all very OK to you.

"can sometimes specialize in logical arguments (e.g., Garry Wills), but they are more often dreamy idealists"

Yes, we are illogical idiots, with our heads up our "dreamy" asses.

How to win friends...... need I add :sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

176. Chauvanism. I remember that.

:)

[MineralMan]

185. I think you'll find that I rarely engage in name-calling.

I am an individual.

I suspect that my ideals and yours are very close to being the same.

I also know that I will never see those ideals realized. So, I'm about moving in their direction.

[EFerrari]

188. Calling one side of this divide "idealistic" insults both sides.

That should be obvious.

[MineralMan]

191. Actually, the term idealistic isn't a negative one in my mind.

I'm idealistic, too. Your ideals and mind are probably virtually identical. My belief that they can be achieved, intact, quickly, however, is probably far different from your belief. For that reason, I prefer to work toward the ideals in an incremental way, since history has shown me that can work.

We do not differ in our ideals. We differ in how we believe they will be attained. I believe that part of a loaf is preferable to not having any bread to eat at all. I will take a slice, if that's all that's available at the moment, and I'll eat it dry if there's no butter to be had.

We share ideals as a strategic goal. We do not share the tactical applications that work toward those goals.

Perhaps we should focus more on our common ground than our differences. That seems worthwhile to me.

[EFerrari]

197. Yes, calling one side "idealistic" implies what you lay out in your post.

Impracticality, and that's just sheer projection overlaid not only on a difference in strategy and tactics, but on a whole world view.

And that isn't how Alter uses the term.

[MineralMan]

200. That's funny. I can't even begin to count how many times

I've been called an idealist. I take it as high praise. I am an idealist, but I'm also practical enough to understand that ideals are rarely realized in complex systems. And our political system in this country is a very complex system, indeed. So, my idealism is something I carry around with me at all times, as I try to get something going in its direction. Since I began being politically active, after hearing Martin Luther King speak in Montgomery in 1965, the ideals are what keep me going. There has been progress. Progress is my goal. The ideal is the ideal. The progress is the method.

That is what I believe. You may believe otherwise, but that is what I believe.

[H2O Man]

241. Sharon Angle

is often confused as being Asian.

[MineralMan]

356. I have no idea what you are talking about, nor why you replied to my

post with that. Perhaps you could explain what you mean so I could respond in some way.

[H2O Man]

380. You did respond in

some way.

[Fumesucker]

189. I read your post a while back about "bitter" and "spiteful" liberals..

I certainly took that as name calling.

[MineralMan]

195. Yes, I did write that OP. It was aimed at a particular subset

of DUers and others. A very narrow subset. If you are not in that specific subset, it did not apply to you.

BTW, that OP is still archived in my journal, if anyone cares to read it.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

[Fumesucker]

210. Name calling is name calling is name calling..

And what you perceive as "bitter" and "spiteful" can as readily be explained as "discouraged" and "disillusioned", that you chose the less charitable explanation says much more about you than those you thought you were writing about.

For some of us the issues you see as more or less abstract are matters of literal life and death in some cases, it's easy to take the long view when it's not your particular ass on the line.

[bobbolink]

620. "it's easy to take the long view when it's not your particular ass on the line."

Perfectly said!

I want the T-shirt! :yourock:

[nashville_brook]

553. b/c you've decided those DU'ers "don't matter" then your insults don't count as...insults?

[Ignis]

644. As a fan of the DU rules, I'm sure you'll appreciate this section:

There are no exceptions to these civility rules. You cannot attack someone because they attacked you first, or because that person "deserved it," or because you think someone is a disruptor. We consider it a personal attack to call a liar a liar, to call a moron a moron, or to call a jerk a jerk.

[H2O Man]

242. checkmate

[bobbolink]

216. Since you don't have to worry about being homeless or having your children taken away or other

consequences of being poor, you can compromise to the hilt.

THAT is where the true split is.

[MineralMan]

221. I have no children, by choice.

I have been on marginal economic grounds since I turned 19. Sometimes I'm doing OK. Other times I'm not. That's because of my choices. I've slept in homeless shelters. I've scrounged for food. Right now, things are relatively stable for me, thank goodness, but that could change tomorrow.

You don't know me. You know almost nothing about me, other than how I think. I express that regularly.

And, along the same lines, I know very little about you. You are a DU poster. A frustrated one, it seems, but I don't know anything about your personal life or situation. You may have written about it sometime, but I didn't see it. Don't assume that you are known.

You post. I reply.

[bobbolink]

218. What is illuminating is that you made this about YOU.

Where is the empathy for those who ARE being called names?

Can you not find it in your heart to understand the damage that is being done?

[Odin2005]

282. for the Latte Liberals it's all about THEM!!!

A lot of their paternalistic "compassion" and "activism" is about their public image, nothing more.

[bobbolink]

290. OMFG... you have hit exactly what happened to me this last week.

Master manipulation, and you are so right... all about IMAGE.

[Odin2005]

258. The "Dreamy Idealists" thing is also RW boilerplate.

I often get the "Conservatives are hard-nosed, logical, and practical, while Liberals are idealistic and wishy-washy" BS thrown at me, and it pisses me off.

[laughingliberal]

270. I believe it borders on a new incarnation of 'bleeding heart liberal.' nt

[Odin2005]

279. I treat the label "bleeding heart liberal" as a badge of honor.

Yes, I am a caring and compassionate person, you RW assholes!

[laughingliberal]

291. Me too! The right, however, used it successfully, to demonize liberals and people who care. nt

[bobbolink]

272. I've often said the conservadems have adopted some tactics of the RW.

For some reason, they don't like to hear that.



Your observation is astute. Right on the mark. And many of us had our fill of it during the * years and have lost all patience with it.

[Odin2005]

276. The DLC are conservatives and the GOP are Fascists.

[DirkGently]

278. "Dreamy" does have a familiar odor to it.

[nashville_brook]

343. smells like flamebait to me --

but why trust what i say, just look at this thread.

[YOY]

549. Yes us and our impossible ideas...that work everywhere else is the fucking world.

But real "action liberals" know that the moment you hit our borders the laws of reality.

That's why they are THE MASTERS OF REALITY!!!!

[Mimosa]

653. That's a good point, Odin! 'Branding' can be used to marginalise and disregard the non-pragmatists

I think everybody ought to read more about JFK and RFK. I think they transcended labeling.


"There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?"
— Robert F. Kennedy (Robert Kennedy in His Own Words: The Unpublished Recollections of the Kennedy Years)


"Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."
— Robert F. Kennedy


"Lets dedicate ourselves to what the ancient greeks wrote so many years ago, to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world. Let us dedicate ourselves to that"
— Robert F. Kennedy

[readmoreoften]

463. +1. What a way to create a schism. If I see these terms on DU I'll puke.

And we'll see them. From the DLC corporate folks--who will now rebrand themselves as "action liberals!" What a joke.

[ProudDad]

148. I'm not a "liberal"

I believe that certain Truths are non-negotiable and must be achieved by any means necessary...

Social Justice, Human Rights, the right to decent housing, enough food, decent, fulfilling useful work and universal Health Care for all...

Oh, yeah, and survival of the Earth as a supportive, hospitable environment for large air-breathing mammals...

"liberals" are willing to compromise to evil in order to receive a few crumbs from the groaning table of plenty... That will NEVER work!

And Jonathon Alter is an egregious defender of the status-quo that will kill us all fairly soon...

On edit:

If you who self-identify as "action liberals" want to actually accomplish anything you might want to remember that starting the negotiations at the other side's minimum ain't gonna get you shit! That's EXACTLY what Obama and his corporate minions did -- they started every negotiation at what they thought "a couple of republicans and blue-dog dems might accept." and then let the bastard blue-dogs chip most everything away from there...

The rug merchants in Tangiers would eat those clowns alive!

[scarletwoman]

160. +1,000!

[jonnyblitz]

181. calling that first group "action" liberals is a fucking HOOT!

of course establishment toady Alter is going to give some pro-active, butch sounding name for himself and his fellow champions of the status-quo. :crazy:

[chimpymustgo]

266. "Establishment today Alter". Great post.

[laughingliberal]

196. Great post! I may not believe in fighting til the last dog dies on every issue but I do think...

fighting til a few punches have been thrown would be good. Perhaps throwing a few punches of our own wouldn't hurt, either.

[Catherina]

606. +1. One of the several gems in this thread n/t

[cornermouse]

180. Labels don't usually work too well unless its needed for

educational or medical purposes as a descriptor of a real condition. I can understand your desire to pull things back together but I honestly think this tactic was doomed to failure. I'd say why but I think you already know why.

[laughingliberal]

207. +1 nt

[ZombieHorde]

198. Depends on my emotional response to a particular issue.

I feel very strongly about gay civil rights, so I have a hard time being "pragmatic" on that issue.

[Overseas]

199. Other. Less Dualistic Democrat.

Far more practical than the supposedly pragmatic group. Aware that ceding too much control to destructive multinational corporations in a "let's be grownups" manner is too dangerous for our planet right now. And sadly, I remember the last time we had so called Pragmatists in power-- we gave up too much, like Glass-Steagal and deliberately diversified media ownership. Not at all pragmatic for most of us.

And I see these-- Dems are Mommy State, GOPs are Daddy State -- as party chatter, and dislike the easy characterizations sometimes.

Furthermore, seems like it would suit the GOP to see the whole range of Democratic constituents neatly divided into two because it would line up with their dangerous multi-million dollar "genuine grass roots" PR palooza of creating Two Republicans--

Look, look !!-- We got the (a) Crazy Teabaggers and (b) Reasonable Republicans--

as though any of those monsters were reasonable!

But they want us to think that way. You got the Crazies and you got the Regulars. But crashing the economy and stirring up hatred for political gain are not "Regular" pursuits. But still, they want voters who are still discontent to be able to pretend they are making a valid choice. I sincerely hope they fail miserably with this tactic.

We've got a lot more kinds of Democrats, and many kinds of pragmatists-- short term, long term, for me, for the continent, for the planet. We're multipartisan, working together in many different ways.

[ruggerson]

201. Were the Founders of our country "action liberals" or "movement liberals?"

My heart and my gut are movement liberal.

My brain is, at times, more action liberal.

So, I guess I'm other.

[Radical Activist]

214. Most were action liberals.

By the above definition, Thomas Paine may have been the only movement liberal. He was an inspiring writer, but he knew he wasn't well suited to actually govern. And he never did.

[MineralMan]

217. Yup. Our Constitution was a document of compromise.

It wasn't easily created, and there were some bitter arguments in the process. It's a compromise. Everything in politics is a compromise when people get to choose how they will be governed. As long as people are different, compromise will be required.

[ProudDad]

225. And it's done soooooo well so far...

:sarcasm:

[MineralMan]

357. Actually, it seems to have done quite well, the Constitution.

Can you be more specific about ways the Constitution has failed? I'd be interested in what you're thinking.

[sabrina 1]

441. If the Founding Fathers were here today, Alter's 'action liberals'

would be outraged by their 'dreamy-eyed' idealism. They rose UP against the status quo. They were anything BUT patient about the wrongs they perceived were being done to them, and they were willing to die to get their 'ponies' and to be called 'traitor' or 'terrorists'.

Alter's 'action liberals', like himself in his support for Bush's war eg, would have compromised with the King and agreed that they 'couldn't get everything they wanted right away'. They would have called the Founding Fathers 'whiners' who 'did not understand the political process'. The pragmatists of today would have been frightened by their passion.

There WERE the equivalent of Alter's 'action liberals' there at the time. They wanted to avoid confrontation. But the FFs prevailed because there were more people around with the guts to fight for what was right back then than there are now.

There is no way the FFs would be able to do now, what they did back then. They would be tossed out of the party and their ideas called 'fucking retarded' AND 'dangerous'.

If I were to agree with Alter's black and white framing, which I don't, the FFs would definitely be 'movement liberals' and most certainly would be labeled as 'purists' who wanted their 'ponies' right away when every sensible person knows that is not possible.

Fortunately they lived over two hundred years ago when fighting for what is right was respected, not called 'whining'. Well, except by the loyalists of course.

[Radical Activist]

462. You really don't know much about the revolution.

They reached out to compromise with the King again and again. The first calls for independence happened years before the Continental Congress finally rebelled against England. They didn't declare independence even after the first battle of the revolution. Your post reaffirms the notion that the movement liberals as described by Alter are acting out of naivety and lack of knowledge about how change happens.

[RaleighNCDUer]

513. And while the so-called 'action' liberals reached out and compromised

and compromised again, and reached out again, the movement liberals were taking action, organizing the committees of correspondence, organizing the Sons of Liberty, organizing for the coming revolution which the 'action liberals' were in denial about, because they saw clearly that the Crown was NOT going to compromise. While 'action liberals' debated in Philadelphis, movement liberals were trading shots with the redcoats in Lexington. While 'action liberals' were sending missives to Parliment, movement liberals were standing on Breed's Hill.

Where, to you, does it look like the action part comes into it?

[Radical Activist]

551. The people preparing for war were often the same ones

trying to avoid it while they debated in Philadelphia. Reality is a little more complex than your simplistic view.

[sabrina 1]

522. I know a great deal about the Revolution.

I know that the 'action liberals' had to be dragged, kicking and screaming to finally either step aside, or agree that all the compromising got them nowhere and actually do something. What they were doing was far more radical than, say, putting a PO in a healthcare bill. It meant risking their very lives and going down in history as traitors.

Today we don't need any time at all to understand that Republicans cannot be compromised with. So why does anyone in their right mind think it is possible? I call THAT naive. Compromising with authoritarians firmly entrenched in their beliefs, unmoved even by logic and facts or the will of the people, THAT is not how change happens.

[Radical Activist]

550. How did you become

so much better than everyone else? Your post drips in self-righteousness.

Actually, the people preparing for a revolution were often the exact same people still trying to reach compromise with England. There's was no solid distinction between those two groups as you have imagined. The same is true today.

Have you read those articles about how facts don't matter to right wingers? They just keep believing what they want to believe when presented with facts. Can you tell me how many major bills received a few Republican votes to pass in the Senate? Financial reform and the stimulus bill are a start. Therefore, your statement that no Republicans can be compromised with is not based in facts. In fact, Obama HAD to get a few Republican votes to compensate for disloyal Democrats like Nelson and Feingold. But, I bet you'll hold onto your belief about that anyway.

How many bills should Obama have let die in the Senate so that you can feel self-righteous about fighting the good fight? Maybe you're more interested in dramatic gestures than results, as the OP claims?

[sabrina 1]

564. Well, thank you! I really don't know since I wasn't actually

aware of it until you so kindly pointed it out ~

Loyalists were not distinguisable from those who wanted freedom from the tyranny of monarchy?

Okay, if you say so ~ although once the action started, the distinction was hard not to see.

It's all about 'feeling' for you? You denigrate those who believe that, eg, torture needs to end NOW or that bombs need to stop falling on innocent men, women and children, NOW? Of course they are not falling on your family and friends. But I guarantee if they were, you would WISH that you had some advocates somewhere who didn't think that political considerations were more important than the lives of your loved ones. If that's 'the good fight' then sign me up and keep me far away from those who think that there is time for wealthy American politicians and their supporters to work out what is best for their careers and if stopping the slaughter and torture and renditions of innocent people should get in the way of those careers, well, how naive to be 'self-righteous' about it. Our respect for the lives of those considered to be 'less than ours' is well known around the globe :sarcasm:

Your post 'drips' with projection. Just so you know, I have spent far more time with rightwingers than I have with those who agree with me. So, yes, I have taken the fight right to them and provided them with facts which I must say, is like showing a cross to a vampire.

Maybe you would have more credibility if you stuck to the issues, rather than attempting to analyze people on the internet that you know absolutely nothing about. Your frustration that not everyone on the internets is going to agree with you, is a bit immature to say the least, causing you to resort to childish insults.

[Radical Activist]

567. You have an overactive imagination.

When did I write anything about torture or war? If you knew how many actions I've organized in opposition to both wars then you'd realize how foolishly offensive you're being right now.

And once again, you fail to understand the revolution. Many of those who you would consider heroes in the revolution were still trying to reach compromise with England up until the last possible moment. You can keep trying to create false dichotomies, but not everything is as simplistic as you'd like it to be.

[sabrina 1]

576. Again, if you could just stick to the issues rather than resort to

insults, I would give your opinions more credibility.

The FFs were heroes to some, traitors to others and definitely traitors if they had lost and we would be talking about them as traitors had that happened. I do not hero worship anyone. All men are flawed, even heroes.

Regarding my reference to torture and war, it was an example if the kind of issues that are put on the back burner by the 'action liberals. I said 'eg (meaning: for example) torture. The self described 'action liberals' are willing to wait on such issues. They may oppose it, but it is not 'urgent' to them. Far more important is winning so no pressure is placed on those they elected for fear of a political loss.

So that leaves a smaller number of people pressuring Congress to restore the rule of law and with that assurance, that their base will tolerate delay on such urgent issues, they do not feel compelled to do much about it.

The 'action liberals' if you want to buy into that silly frame, would have continued to try to negotiate with the King had not the 'movement liberals' taken the matter into their own hands. At some point they realized that you cannot compromise with tyranny. Just when will this dawn on today's 'action liberals'?

[Radical Activist]

578. Every comment you've made has been full of insults.

And mostly ignorant insults based on cartoon characterizations of what you think other people are like. You're a very poor mind reader.

And once again, you ignore facts that don't fit your preconceived ideas and narrative. The people who rebelled are the same people who tried to negotiate and compromise with the King. This destroys your entire premise that there's on group of movement liberals who are uncompromising and a separate group of action liberals who didn't want to fight. They were the same people. Do you know how many times Washington supported reconciliation with England before he finally agreed to lead the Continental army? No, you obviously don't.

By your simple-minded understanding of history and politics, Washington and most other founding fathers are action liberals because they repeatedly tried to negotiate with England. I've posted this four times now. Please try to mull it over in your brain and process the facts this time. The lines you're trying to draw are false and meaningless.

[sabrina 1]

586. Count the number of times the word 'you' is used in your posts.

Or 'simple-minded' etc. etc. Not to worry, I've been insulted by the originators of these tactics, the masters of the tactics, so it doesn't affect me personally, but it does diminish your credibility.

Many people never joined the Revolution and many ended up going to England to avoid taking part in the Revolution. Others tried to remain neutral. The 'movement liberals' DID try to negotiate, of course they would, the King was THEIR king at the time. But the difference between those who realized that there was no point in trying to negotiate further and those who wanted to continue to do so (are you denying the existence of these individuals?) was that the FFs, who fit Alter's silly characterization of 'movement liberals' at some point HAD ENOUGH.

As described by Alter, 'action liberals' NEVER have enough of appeasement and negotiating with people who by now it should be clear, cannot be negotiated with.


Since I do not identify with either of Alter's two silly labels, none of this is personal to me. I am assuming you must identify with his 'action liberal' label. Is it the word 'action' that appeals to people? Because there is good action and bad action. Which is why Alter's characterizations are so silly. He himself, who identifies with the 'action' part, hasn't demonstrated that he can distinguish between good and bad actions, considering his support of Bush's illegal invasion of IRaq. I would not be too influenced by anyone who made that kind of massive error, and certainly would never consider adapting any frames he might come up with.

[Radical Activist]

596. There's your imagination again.

You wrote: "As described by Alter, 'action liberals' NEVER have enough of appeasement and negotiating with people who by now it should be clear, cannot be negotiated with."

No, that's not anything close to what Alter actually wrote. It's clear based on your responses that you have no comprehension of his point and you took it as an opportunity to wail against an imaginary enemy.

I guess you'll never get the point about the revolution. Even the people we could call action liberals at some point had enough, stopped negotiating and rebelled. Your attempt to place a group of liberals in the shoes of those who didn't participate in the revolution at all is insulting and completely misses the point of the article.

[sabrina 1]

623. Lol, I guess you missed the point of this whole conversation then.

How can anyone have a logical conversation about the American Revolution and the complex issues that led to it, the many people on all sides and why they did what they did, when you confine that discussion to the two boxes Alter has constructed and to try to narrow it all down to which of those boxes we can neatly place all of this incredibly complex human beings, who yes, did come together finally with a single goal in mind, but as soon as it was achieved were once again often separated by their vastly different povs of how this new country they had all created together, should be run?

I tried, you tried, but there is simply no way to put those people neatly into either of those two boxes. So you failed and so did I.

I rejected those labels, but you identified with one of them and to facilitate your self-identification, I tried to argue from that pov. Let me guess, you no doubt placed ME in the 'movement/liberal' box! Lol! Because if I'm 'not with you, I must be against you'.

I think even if unwittingly, you helped prove my point that this whole concept is just plain childish and simplistic.

The truth is that from what you have said, we probably agree on a lot of issues. If we were to have a rational discussion about them, absent the introduction of the idea that we are enemies, it's possible we could find some agreement on how to forward those issues.

But once a line is drawn in the sand, like this 'action/movement' labeling has done, nothing can be accomplished, not even the ability to see that maybe we are not enemies, but actually allies.

Anyhow, it's been fun, and try not to be so angry. Despite the labels, I am not the enemy. They are in the Republican Party.

Edited to add btw, that I do agree with your last comment for the most part. I never believed that anyone back then was not capable of compromise and also capable of knowing when it was no longer going to work and something else needed to be done. But trying to label them with one of two convenient stickers made it necessary to try to limit their abilities and put them neatly in Alter's boxes.

[Jamastiene]

472. This

is exactly how it would have happened. Thank you for pointing it out.

[Radical Activist]

206. Social movement leaders are action liberals too.

Even Martin Luther King had to raise money, network, and sometimes sit down to make deals with people he disliked. That's the reality of it.

You should have included the next paragraph about movement liberals.

They frequently over­indulge in fine whines, appear naïve about political realities and prefer emotionally satisfying gestures to incremental but significant change.

I certainly see a lot of people on DU who are more interested in gestures than action.

I believe the distinction is one of experience and knowledge. On one hand, there are people who have been leaders to some degree in politics or movement activism and who understand the mechanics of how progress happens.

On the other hand you have people who have only been involved without becoming leaders, or who are outside observers such as journalists and academics. They typically have naive ideas of how even their own heroes were able to make change. They may participate in positive actions, but never become effective strategists or organizers.

The best activists I know maintain their ideals while engaging in the dirty work of both electoral politics and movement activism. They understand that setbacks and compromises are temporary, while the push for more always continues. They have a long-term perspective that comes with knowledge, experience and wisdom. It separates them from the armchair pundits who may never gain the first-hand knowledge that comes from being an organizer.

[laughingliberal]

212. "Even Martin Luther King had to raise money, network, and sometimes... make deals with people..."

True. However, once having made a 'deal' I do not recall he threw a big party, declared it a 'win' for our side, and considered the issue closed.

[Radical Activist]

219. MLK certainly did celebrate victories.

He did recognize wins. It helps to keep the momentum going.

Where you go off track is the line about considering the issue closed. I don't know who you think has done that, but it certainly isn't Obama. In fact, he often says there's more work to do in areas like health care, energy, financial reform, and Iraq. The idea that these issues are being declared closed is something you've imagined. Obama is acting in the same way you describe MLK.

Celebrating victories helps build momentum for new ones. Having a constant mindset of defeat and disappointment will usually lead to defeat and disappointment.

[boston bean]

227. Who says disappointment means defeat or throwing in the towel?

That's quite the one sided framing you got going on there.

[laughingliberal]

250. I think I would have preferred to see something along the lines of a commitment from the President..

after HCR reform passed to keep working for a public option. It was not encouraging that his response to those who were angry about not having it was to deny he ever campaigned on it.

[Radical Activist]

322. One issue?

I suppose there will always be a fundamental difference between those who blame the Senate for blocking the public option and those who hold to conspiracy theories about Obama not wanting it. Obama has made it obvious that he supports changing and improving the law in the future so it would appear that your wish is granted.

Obama didn't get the HCR bill he campaigned on. That's how it works when a President's goals run up against a conservative US Senate. I thought that was a very basic reality of politics that any adult understood before the election.

[laughingliberal]

338. One issue as an example, yes

I see no reason Obama could not have trumpeted the progress made by the HCR bill and vowed to see it expanded to provide more help over time.

If, in fact, it was the Senate, alone, responsible for him not getting the bill he campaigned on, this would have made perfect sense.

What made no sense was him saying he never campaigned on a public option. With all due respect, that was something of a WTF???

There are other examples where we settled for far less than we needed and celebrating the progress is fine. But they could have celebrated their 'win' with a commitment to keep working towards more progress. Financial reform is another example of a bill that did not go nearly far enough. What's the downside of saying, "We've made a good start here and I will continue to work with the Congress to further protect the American people?"

The stimulus bill is another. The celebrating of its passage and telling the American people it would prevent unemployment from going above 8% was not smart. Nobody believed the amount of stimulus they passed with 40% diverted to tax cuts would hold unemployment at 8%. A smarter approach would have been, "This package is a good start towards getting some real help into the economy but I'm not satisfied it will do enough for jobs. I'm committed to continuing to work for more funding for the types of programs that will get Americans working again." That would have been smart. When unemployment rose and people bitched, his answer could have been, "You may recall my administration felt we needed X number of dollars spent on (fill in the blank) projects to have a big impact on jobs but we were forced, by the obstructionism of the Republicans in the Senate to settle for X. While this helped avert a worse catastrophe, it was not enough in my book." That would have been brilliant. Had he done it that way, the Republicans would be taking the heat right now for the high unemployment. That would have been the best of action and movement politics to use the examples of the OP. It would have allowed a deal to get the stimulus passed AND the flexibility to push for more later or, at the very least, to blame the Republicans for the lackluster results.

[Radical Activist]

394. Armchair quarterbacking is fun.

But we have no way of knowing whether things would have turned out any better or worse if Obama had taken your advice.

In fact, Obama has spoken about working for more progress regarding all of his victories. So I'm not sure what your complaint is except that maybe you're paying too much attention to the spin about what Obama says instead of actually hearing it first hand.

Obama campaigned on health care reform and the public option was one aspect of his original plan that didn't pass. I think the effort to pretend the public option was a major campaign issue is disingenuous revisionist history. No one was talking about it until it was obvious that the Senate wasn't likely to pass it.

Getting back to the point, MLK celebrated victories in Birmingham, Montgomery and elsewhere even when there was much more work to do. He celebrated the voting rights bill even though the civil rights act was still needed. No movement can survive on a diet of pure cynicism that doesn't recognize progress.

[laughingliberal]

406. I cringed in Feb 2009 when the stimulus passed and the Democrats started trumpeting about...

how the stimulus meant unemployment would not go over 8%. I knew the stimulus was inadequate for a result like that. I knew then the trumpeting of that weak, inadequate stimulus bill was setting them up for hell, later. I heard what Obama said. His administration was stating the stimulus would keep unemployment from rising over 8%. And they were asked about the possibility of more stimulus in the future and would not commit to it. It's not armchair quarterbacking on my part. I knew it was a bad move then and it was.

By the time he started pushing for the jobs' bill, things were seriously out of control. The Republicans were able to go back and say the first stimulus failed to keep unemployment from going over 8% as Obama had said it would and they weren't going to spend more money for another stimulus that would fail. He flubbed it. He gave too much quarter to the deficit hawks by agreeing with them and, by the time he and Bernanke realized we were at risk of a double dip recession due to the high unemployment, the deficit hawks had gained control of the message. I know you don't like to admit the President made any mistakes with any of this but he did. There were people, at the time, pointing out that the stimulus bill was inadequate and they were being shouted down just as anyone who points out problems now is shouted down. If the 'action liberals' had listened a little more to the 'movement liberals' we would be in a much better place right now. We may not have gotten a better stimulus bill but we would not have been banging a drum and raising expectations of the one we got beyond all realism.

As for MLK, he did celebrate victories but did not sit back and decide the game was won. Yes, the Civil Right's Act was still needed and he kept working towards 'more.' And, when it passed, he didn't stop there. He was in Memphis when he was killed to support the sanitation workers' strike and economic justice, as well as opposition to the Viet Nam war, had become issues he was working passionately on. It's well and good to celebrate an incremental victory as long as you're celebrating it as such-an important step but not the end of the fight. I'm pretty aware of MLK's activities after the Civil Right's Act passed as my parents' organization worked with him pretty closely. He never gave the impression the battle was over.

[Radical Activist]

411. There you go with that same baseless characterization.

What's the point of your lines about deciding the "game was won" or that someone is giving the impression that "the battle was over." Who are you making these remarks in reference to? Obama is traveling the country right now saying in every speech that we've made progress but that there's much more work to do. It sounds to me like Obama is already doing exactly what you're suggesting in that regard. He comes from a background of movement activism. He already understands how this works.

[laughingliberal]

417. That is what he's doing now & good. However, in Feb 2009, he said the stimulus bill would keep...

unemployment from going over 8%. It didn't. Anyone with a basic knowledge of economics knew it would not produce that result and President Obama avoided the question of further stimulus later, leaving the distinct impression he felt the stimulus that passed was adequate. He then spent several months agreeing with the deficit hawks. When he convened the jobs' summit in December of that year he said, "We have limited resources for this,' still giving quarter to the deficit hawks instead of pushing for robust stimulus in the face of the jobs' crisis.

It was a miss. I was glad when he and Bernanke finally saw the train heading for them and began to tell Congress that cutting spending now would be a mistake but, by then, it was too late. The deficit hawks had control of the message.

Yes, it's nice to see the President on the campaign trail and saying we have more work to do and I hope he's making a difference. But the fact is the 'movement' liberals had the right ideas and the right message all along. We were shouted down by the 'action' liberals and that's why we're in such a close fight now.

[girl gone mad]

377. Here is what Martin Luther King had to say about Alter's "Action Liberals":

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity."

This man was no pragmatist. He solemnly rejected that "third way". He saw moderate centrists as the true and unyielding obstacle to justice. He would have had no patience for this party as it squandered opportunity after opportunity, voluntarily shackling itself to the dead weight of bipartisanship.

This man would never have stood for the unfettered theft of national treasure by our criminal banking class, the 'fierce advocacy' of endless procrastination on gay rights, compromising away access to affordable medicine and health care for an ersatz win and the fantasy of overflowing campaign coffers, selling off what's left of the public sector to greedy charlatans, or any of the rest of the fascist corporatist agenda Orwellianly cloaked in the language of benevolent middle class aid. This man was a hero, and to associate him with today's opportunistic, self-serving political class is to do an immense disservice to his life and his legacy.

[Radical Activist]

389. Maybe you should read it again. He wrote moderate not liberal.

I knew exactly what you were going to post as soon as I saw your subject line. This discussion is about active liberals, and not the inactive moderates King described in that letter. Your posting this suggests that you didn't read Kings letter or the OP. Or that you didn't understand either one. The discussion is not about third way moderates. Your accusations against liberals who are effectively taking action are misguided and insulting.

[girl gone mad]

396. Your definition of activism and King's definition would be miles apart.

King was for confronting the status quo head on, right now.

He would not have wasted two years compromising with the far right on health reform, requesting studies on DADT, standing by while hucksters pillaged the public purse, expanding illegitimate wars that enriched deeply corrupt contractors, etc.

The white moderates King references were in most ways the doppelgangers of today's incrementalists. They advised patience and pragmatism while pushing King to work within the system rather than to defy it. They were the ones who would have said "it's only been two years, what are you complaining about?" Fortunately for us all, he didn't listen to the action liberals of his day. He said human rights can't wait, peace can't wait, justice delayed is justice denied. He had no patience for those who told him political power and public credibility were more important than his personal pony.

[Radical Activist]

400. You're making extremely insulting statements out of ignorance.

You have no idea what my idea of activism is or what I've done. Maybe I've done more than you. How many thousands of people showed up at the last protest rally you organized?

Both the civil rights act and voting rights act involved extensive negotiations and compromising with the right. It didn't stop King from celebrating the progress. He had a more long-term, sophisticated understanding of how progress happens than you. Maybe you would have called MLK an incrementalist moderate at the time, like Malcolm X and H Rap Brown did.

[girl gone mad]

638. I think you're quite confused.

Malcolm and Martin were fighting for the same exact radical systemic change. Neither man was moderate in their demands or in their approach. Malcolm X never called King a moderate or an incrementalist.


"I'll say nothing against him. At one time the whites in the United States called him a racialist, and extremist, and a Communist. Then the Black Muslims came along and the whites thanked the Lord for Martin Luther King."

"Dr. King wants the same thing I want -- freedom!"

"I want Dr. King to know that I didn't come to Selma to make his job difficult. I really did come thinking I could make it easier. If the white people realize what the alternative is, perhaps they will be more willing to hear Dr. King."

"The goal has always been the same, with the approaches to it as different as mine and Dr. Martin Luther King's non-violent marching, that dramatizes the brutality and the evil of the white man against defenseless blacks. And in the racial climate of this country today, it is anybody's guess which of the "extremes" in approach to the black man's problems might personally meet a fatal catastrophe first -- "non-violent" Dr. King, or so-called "violent" me."

Dr. King on Malcolm X:

"You know, right before he was killed he came down to Selma and said some pretty passionate things against me, and that surprised me because after all it was my territory there. But afterwards he took my wife aside, and said he thought he could help me more by attacking me than praising me. He thought it would make it easier for me in the long run."

[readmoreoften]

464. Do you really think that movement organizers don't DEAL and MAKE CONCESSIONS?

They just tend not to deal and make concessions with the enemy to retain political office. There's a difference for you.

[Radical Activist]

479. I wrote just the opposite, so why do you ask?

They make plenty of deals with enemies to help reach their goals. Civil rights leaders and union Presidents made deals with people they considered enemies all the time. Judging by the attacks on Obama, there are posters here who think compromise of any kind is a sin.

If someone's main goal is to only retain office then that's a problem. But it would be grossly unfair to accuse a large number of liberal activists of only caring about staying in office.

[NRaleighLiberal]

211. I tend toward movement liberal, but can be stirred into action when I've had enough! n/t

[johnaries]

226. By that definition, definitely an Action Liberal.

I have a "dreamy, idealistic" side in which I can envision my own personal ideal of what should and shouldn't be. But experience has also taught me to be careful what you wish for. I have been wrong before, and there is no doubt that I could be wrong about some things in my idealistic dreams.

That being said, there are some things that I think should be pretty obvious that I want to see implemented. for instance, Keynesian economics has been proven to work many times, while the Austrian school of "trickle-down" or "supply-side" or what I like to call "trust me" economics has failed under every incarnation.

But I understand the value of patience. I understand the value of incremental implementation. "Baby steps", as some would call it. I alos understand that if the "ideal" system were to be implemented immediately without preparation, then it is probably doomed to fail as a result of the lack of preparation. Which means that the average person would be against trying it again.

I am a patient person. I understand that "real change" takes time. Therefore, I would have to say that I am an "Action Liberal".

I don't care how wonderful your idealism is - it's useless if it can't be implemented and applied to the real world.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

229. Other. The dichotomy is false.

It presumes that there is a wider range of helpful-but-insufficient solutions than there actually are.

For instance, Obama is a classic action liberal.

When confronted with a demand crisis he opted for whatever Nobel Prize winning economist Susan Collins thought. That's the pragmatic thing to do.

But whatever Susan Collins thought was, on balance, malignant for the long-term health of America.

The helpful on the margins but ultimately doomed stimulus was the worst of outcomes because it was guaranteed to prevent any good solution.

The nation is fucked and the people helped by the stimulus (millions) will end up hurt worse on balance.

You cannot cross a chasm in two jumps.

Some things lend themselves to incremental change. Other things that have built in thresholds do not.

The ongoing smear of correct pragmatic solutions to crisis as unrealistic dreams is disgusting.

(The usual rejoinder to this is, "How would you get 60 votes for x, y, z?" I would fucking lead. That's how. I would make the case for the necessity of x, y and z and cast all who opposed x, y and z as de facto enemies of the nation. And if that did not work then I would STILL be in a better position since at least the needed solution would not have been deligitimized by a guaranteed-to-fail parody of the solution and would thus still be an available option as the crisis upped the pressure for a solution.)

[ProSense]

245. "presumes that there is a wider range of helpful-but-insufficient solutions than there actually are"

The problem is not the range of solutions, it's will, and that includes that of Congress and the American people.

The economic failures, leading to the worse recession since the Great Depression, are the result of decades of bullshit policies. It all collapses and President Obama is expected to fix it before anyone even understands the full implications of the crisis.

Siglitz

Given the complexity of the economic system, the difficulties in predicting how expectations will be altered, and the pervasive irrationalities in the market, there is no way the impact of any economic policy could be ascertained with certainty. There may be some circumstances in which the effect of monetary policy can be accurately gauged. But recessions of this depth come only once every 75 years. What is true in normal times may be of little relevance now, especially as central banks engage in unusual measures such as QE.

A lot of people are proposing economic solutions tried over the past 30 years (Reagan through Bush 2) as viable for the Obama administration, which is dealing with an economic crisis of historic proportions. A lot of economists, including Stiglitz, were around, at least during the Clinton years, and in recent times should have been making a lot more noise. Some warned, but if the media, corporations and country didn't take them seriously, why are they surprised that the media and corporations are pushing back hard against this administration?

The mortgage crisis is a relatively new phenomenon and the solution is not going to be a quick or easy fix.

The greedy corporate assholes have no intention of cooperating unless they get their way.

The stimulus worked, as many have indicated, including Paul Krugman, though he continues to say it was too small. It's not clear what impact a couple of hundred billion more would have given the depth of the crisis.

The fact is that it worked.

You can quibble about more stimulus, but the underlying economic problems (includng the mortgage crisis) aren't going to be solved by infrastructure spending. Spending four times as much on infrastructure than the President called for would eventually create more jobs in the long term, but the economy has more serious structural problems.

[Crunchy Frog]

231. False dichotomy IMO. I don't agree with the question's underlying assumptions

and therefore can't give a meaningful answer.

[Bluenorthwest]

232. The opposite of action is inaction

All movement is action, but not all action is movement. Alter's use of words is just so much gibberish. It is a poorly crafted way of saying my group is called 'better' and yours is called 'the other group'. His labels, and those of most here who seek so constantly to have frames and labels for others, exist almost entirely as passive aggressive forms of speaking about others.
If a person wishes to take on an identity for themselves, wonderful. But anyone who feels that in order to do so, they must also assign identities to others is simply out of line. If your political positions can not stand there on their own, without playing compare and contrast games, you really don't have positions, just personality traits.
Movement is an action that involves a change of location or position. Action without movement involves no progress. So if we look at the two words as meaning 'those who want to move' and 'those who would rather stay here, but maybe get new rugs' how many would run to say 'let's stay right here, with the lack of jobs, the stress, the divisions'?
But movement is not possible without action, the opposite of action is inaction, movement is action plus direction.
Flailing is an action, walking is movement. And I will gladly say that I am not about the flailing. I am, and always have been, about getting somewhere.

[ProSense]

233. Could you imagine MLK

protesting the Civil Rights Act signing because it didn't include the voting right? Me either.



Frankly, I don't see how anything gets done without both: people who are willing to move the ball forward and those who are looking at the goal.

In many instances, they're one in the same.

[girl gone mad]

390. Odd that practical pragmatists would choose to hide behind the mantle of a revolutionary idealist.

Yet we know well what he thought of moderates and their demands to hold the boat steady so that incremental progress could be achieved.

He despised that approach and had no patience for the listless efforts of moderate centrists.

[Poll_Blind]

237. The poll results are interesting- I wonder how much that's changed over time and...

...if, when recollecting on some maybe-real, maybe-imagined halcyon days of DU, we're just recalling a time when the forums had a different ratio of one viewpoint to another.

:shrug:

PB

[EFerrari]

240. Plus, Skinner posted the poll. n/t

[KoKo]

238. I was an Action Liberal (DLC) until Supremes gave Election to Bush...I'm now Movement Liberal.

And, I get worse as a Movement Liberal as time goes by. I became radicalized by the terrible events of Clinton's second term (Lewinsky thing)...but my anger was focused on what the RW did to impeach him.

After reading and learning more about the Clinton years and then suffering through Bush vs. Gore I realized that REAL CHANGE was going to take a lot of work. I stupidly believed the advent of the Internet and Global and individual communications would make a huge change in the direction this country was going. Sadly, I was wrong about how much Internet Activism would be able to accomplish given what we were up against on the Left.

So...these days I look for real change and building a movement to produce it. I'm still a dreamer about what "COULD HAVE BEEN and WHAT COULD BE." Being an older DU'er I've suffered through too many Dem Disappointments not to realize that REAL CHANGE isn't going to come from Politicians of these times and of the caliber of many of them.

[nashville_brook]

249. "dreamy movement liberals" want pink ponies and unicorns!!!! biased, much?

[KoKo]

293. It's Jonathan Alter...what do you expect? Although he did push back hard against NAFTA

...but after that disappointment and his cancer...he had to make a living. Many of us might have had to compromise after having a lifetime downer like that.

Sometimes Alter makes good points but he's co-opted and corrupted like the rest of the MSM at this point so reading him is like reading "kindler, gentler DLC" because he was helped out so much he has a loyalty to them. As I said...If I had to walk in his shoes...would have I done the same?

If it's your career and the alternate is Fox News that wouldn't hire you early on or the MSM DYING PRINT Operations...where do you go?

He's Pragmatic...like Obama and the rest whose "Jobs are on the Line" in these hard times.

[Smashcut]

256. Big unrec for this one-sided bullshit push poll.

And I think it's irresponsible for the admin of this site to post something so obviously partial to one side of two sparring factions here.

[KoKo]

295. You mean the "missing shades of gray" ...and that DU has obvious Trolls for Repugs?

Well...I think Skinner might be a bit of a dreamer with some "pragmatism" thrown in. So...it is what it is with this.

I was GLAD HE ASKED! FRANKLY! :-)

[TBF]

260. The two groups we should be talking about are owners and workers. nt

[scarletwoman]

281. True that. +1

[Odin2005]

284. Yup, no war but the Class War.

[jgraz]

275. I'm a liberal who thinks Jonathan Alter is full of crap

What side does that put me on?

[NJmaverick]

277. The side that doesn't believe in explaining a position

[jgraz]

297. Oh, as in defining what it means to "STAND WITH" a political party?

Why don't you take this opportunity to explain that one?

[Touchdown]

316. Oops!

:spray:

[NJmaverick]

373. Do you really need to have the concept of standing with a political party

explained to you?:shrug:

[jgraz]

381. No, I need to see if you understand the concept.

But, given your continued bluffs, I think I have my answer.

[alarimer]

285. I am a movement liberal because the right thing to do is ALWAYS the right thing to do.

Anything other than attempting to do the right things is selling out. To corporations, to Republicans, to whom ever.

You sleep with dogs (Blue Dogs, that is) you wake up with fleas. Trying to make deals with snakes (Republicans and conservatives especially) only gets you bitten.

[defendandprotect]

334. Agree with your post -- but why let someone force you into labeling yourself ... ???

[beforeyoureyes]

612. Love it. Love it.

[BootinUp]

289. So which ones are gonna get the boot?

:sarcasm:

It was just a joke, lol.

[Lucian]

294. From what I'm reading, it seems like "action liberals" are willing to sell out...

some of their beliefs to get little of what they want to pass whereas "movement liberals" have passion, care about what's going on, and willing to do anything to get change. Since I'm not willing to sell out to get what I want, I'm a "movement liberal."

[mzteris]

306. Wow - that's pretty - um -

- well - not very nice.

So you never ever believe in compromise? Consensus? Democratic rule?

[Lucian]

312. The truth hurts.

Civil unions resulted in compromise. I believe all same sex partners should get married.

So no, I'm not willing to compromise.

[mzteris]

321. Not willling to compromise - on anything. ever.

Wow. Must be hard being your friend, partner, relative, child, or co-worker.

Sounds like a republican value to me.

[Lucian]

324. Compromising in personal relationships is different.

Compromising on a large-scale in politics is much different.

Even you should know that.

[mzteris]

368. how is it different?

Moving forward - even in small increments - is better than moving backward or not at all.

[bullwinkle428]

544. Which rights should GLBT citizens be willing to compromise on?

[Catherina]

296. Neither. Other. False framing. n/t

[ibegurpard]

408. agreed

the article seems just like another retread of the "some of you are just upset with the pace of change" argument.

[Catherina]

501. It's a slap in the face to voters with principles and an endorsement of bullshit. n/t

[readmoreoften]

466. + 10,000,000,000,000,000,000

[La Lioness Priyanka]

298. Both, i vote as an action liberal, i work in movement building.

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

300. Other.

I'm the original Liberal :hippie:

[Jamastiene]

474. Once again,

I love your posts. :thumbsup:

[bigwillq]

301. Movement (nt)

[mzteris]

302. interesting - 298 responses, only 15 recs.

Why would one unrec this?

It's putting a name on the obvious divide that occurs here.

Right now, it's 40/40 with 22 percent undecided/don't know...

pretty interesting

[TBF]

592. One might unrec for false framing -

the concern should be owners v. workers ...

Others might unrec for the unflattering portrayal of "movement" democrats. We are being chastised for not being thrilled with incremental change. And I use the word incremental loosely.

[mzteris]

608. I didn't think it was unflattering . . .

How would you define it?

[TBF]

609. I wouldn't be the one splitting my party -

I believe in worker solidarity. The only 2 groups I see are owners v. workers. And too many of us (even on this site) identify with the owners.

[nashville_brook]

315. Locking

The OP seems to have abandoned this thread.

:evilgrin:

[blondeatlast]

320. LOLZ! nt

[defendandprotect]

325. All Democrats should be fighting the same enemy -- CORPORATISM.....

which is fascism --

Corporate money buying into the Democratic Party is no less of a threat --

and has been no less of a threat -- to our futures than corporate money buying

into the Repug party!

We've understood this for more than a hundred years --

Teddy Roosevelt spoke about it -- FDR spoke about it --

"We need to bar corporations from any involvement, whatsoever, with our elections" -- !!

That was true then -- it's even truer now.



Action or non-action? Let's stay consistent, eh?

[Scurrilous]

326. Interesting results.

K & R :thumbsup:

[Number23]

332. And even more interesting (and telling) replies.

:)

[Name removed]

370. Deleted message

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

[Hekate]

339. Action, but always motivated by my core ideals. Ideals without real-world results are worthless.

At least that is the case for me.

Hekate

[InvisibleTouch]

366. Well-said. n/t

[Ken Burch]

345. Question: if there were ONLY "Action Liberals"

Would those Action Liberals ever actually ACT?

Doesn't it always take massive prodding from below to get the Action Liberals off their duffs?

In the early 1960's, for example, the evidence strongly suggests that John F. Kennedy would have been perfectly content to do and say nothing about Jim Crow if the Freedom Riders and the rest of the movement hadn't forced him to move.

[scarletwoman]

351. Good question!

:thumbsup:

[MineralMan]

360. Actually most of those I know who might be characterized as

"Action Liberals" share the same goals as those who might be characterized as "Movement Liberals." I know I do. So, we want the exact same things. We just disagree on the need to have them put in effect as a whole, in one pass, or whether an incremental adoption of those goals as the standards is also an acceptable route.

The goals are identical. The process is not.

[Prism]

350. Nice. Divisive flamebait, push polling, and describing half the board in perjorative terms.

Good grief.

Really?

[HughMoran]

371. It appears you read a completely different post than I did.

:shrug:

[LAGC]

355. Chuckles the sensible wood-chuck is definitely an "action liberal."

[eridani]

358. Other. Talking tactics is just bullshit until you've decided which side are you on.

Unions or J.H. Blair? People or corporations?

FDR certainly made a lot of compromises with racists to get New Deal legislation done, but basically he was for people. As for corporations, he said "I welcome their enmity." I can't imagine him publicly slamming militant union organizers or civil rights activists in one of his fireside chats. And people were willing to give Dems even larger majorities in 1934 even though none of his initiatives had had much effect by then--they just thought he was on their side and trusted him to keep pushing.

Even if we avoid losing control of both houses, there is nowhere near that sense that the president is on our side. I'm supporting Democrats strictly out of the fear of full-blown teabagger fascism. Not when he calls fraud-perpetrating banksters "savvy businessmen," when he persists in acting as if we are just in a garden-variety business cycle when this century has had THREE jobless recoveries and is headed for FIFTEEN STRAIGHT YEARS of no net job growth, when he gives the most support to Dems who have voted against his agenda, and when he states even before the election that he is looking forward to working with the Republicans who want nothing more that putting him on the fast track to impeachment.

I'd be fine with all the helpful but woefully inadequate legislation if I had a sense that he'd been fighting hard for me and merely fallen short. Bue he won't even come out unequivocally against raising the retirement age!

[ibegurpard]

419. agreed

[Stinky The Clown]

359. "Action" Liberal vs "Movement" Liberal

Superman vs Poindexter.

Football vs Chess

White Water Rafting vs Backward Walking





What a load of crap framing.

[InvisibleTouch]

365. Started out as mostly a "movement liberal"...

...but have become more and more of an "action liberal" over time. Stuff needs to get *done,* and it's better to make some progress than none ... but the drive to get it done will always be powered, on the most basic level, by the dream of the ideal.

For what it's worth, I think the designations "movement" and "action" are terrible. Couldn't the author have come up with more descriptive terms? "Idealist" vs. "Pragmatist," perhaps? And both are necessary.

[whatchamacallit]

367. I'm me. n/t

[jaxx]

374. I am an action liberal.

I like results and am willing to let the progress unfold. When I try to push and shove to get something done the frustration levels are maddening and I find I have often stood in the way of progress because I wouldn't back down for 5 minutes.

Interesting thread. Definitely big tent material. :-)

[MannyGoldstein]

388. FDR Liberal - settle for what's possible after fighting hard for the right thing. nt

[Lilith Velkor]

392. Ooh, look at me, I'm an Action Liberal with Kung Fu Grip!

:fapfapfap:

[scarletwoman]

402. OMG OMG OMG OMG

I can't breathe! :fapfapfap:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Goddam, Lilith. :yourock:

In tears,
sw

[Tsiyu]

579. :fapfapfap:

OMG



:rofl:

[Better Believe It]

395. 34 Unrecommendations! Why?

There are 53 "just recommendations" and 19 listed after deducting the unrecommends!

Is it time to remove this abusive and undemocratic procedure which enables an organized group to knock or keep posts off the front page?

[TexasObserver]

397. Because it's a democratic process in which disagreement is allowed.

I recommended the thread, but those who wanted to unrecommend had that right. Isn't it better to know that there's only a +19 plurality, instead of only knowing there were 53 recommends?

There's nothing wrong with the rec and unrec features. They work.

[Better Believe It]

533. They "work" if you want to engage in "front page" removal and censorship

"Isn't it better to know that there's only a +19 plurality, instead of only knowing there were 53 recommends?"

No.

Unless you know the exact number of unrecommends for every recommended post you would not know how many recommends and unrecommends there are for every post. And that information is not revealed for an overwhelming number of lead posts.

The number of both recommends/unrecommends could and should be listed for every post.

As I pointed out over one year ago:

If DU has this feature available for administrators/moderators, this information can easily be shared share with all DU'ers. What in the world would be wrong with that?

I'm not going to use the unrecommend feature and I hope most DU'ers won't and here's why.

DU'ers who recommend a post for "the greatest" are not trying to exclude, censor or remove a post from any location on DU. DU'ers who don't agree with the "greatest" or "front page" post or who just don't like the poster, are free to criticize the post or even put the poster on ignore!

The unrecommend feature is a whole different kettle of fish. The difference between putting a post in a prominent location on a website and removing that post from that location should be clear.

The unrecommend feature enables people to remove, bump down or even prevent posts from even appearing on the "greatest page" and the front "home page" with a simple click of the mouse!

The clear objective of such clicks is to reduce the number of views (hits) of posts that they don't agree with. That's censorship, even if a few posters try to pretty it up by claiming it's a democratic form of exclusion, a peoples censorhip!

Again, the undemocratic consequence of the "unrecommend" feature is to reduce the number of DU'ers who notice and are likely to read the post. And some want it that way! In the case of DU administrators it looks like the "law of unintended consequences" has struck again.

It's a simple as that.

The purpose of "the Greatest Page" was not to record "votes" in support of or in opposition to certain political views or posters some DU'ers don't like and yet that is what it is now being used for!

Democratic Underground clearly stated: "The Greatest Page lists threads which have been nominated by the members of DU as the most noteworthy." It was not intended as a means of casting "votes" for or against including posts on the "greatest page" or the homepage on Democratic Underground.

In any case, if this "greatest page", "front page" removal mechanism remains in place, I hope that the information showing the total number of recommends and unrecommends for posts is displayed for all DU'ers to see, not just administrators/moderators.

Don't you agree?

[TexasObserver]

555. You should take your thoughts to "Ask the Admins."

We've been through this before, and I've asked you before why you were telling me, instead of telling the admins. Your arguments have been roundly rejected by 80% of the DU population, over and over and over.

How many times do you have to be told that your point of view is a small minority here, and that you're not going to get your way, no matter how many times you whine about it?

When the site owner tells you it is whining, and you keep it up, what does that say about you? Do you really think by complaining about it incessantly for 16 months you're going to get your way?

Your belief that this process is censorship is simply off the wall and without any rational basis. Either take it up with the admins or stop complaining about it.

[Better Believe It]

570. You don't like DU'ers reading them here and you can't refute my statement with rational arguments.

That's your problem, not mine.

And who put you in charge of Democratic Underground?

You prance around like some kind of boss dictating what we should post and where we should post it!

[LAGC]

410. Why is this divisive thread front-page material?

Just because Skinner wrote it?

I know most of his posts get hundreds of recommendations, maybe Skinner should take a hard, long look at why this thread isn't.

[readmoreoften]

465. +1.

[MineralMan]

499. -1 for whining about the unrec feature.

You could start your own discussion forum without that feature.

[Lyric]

398. I'm all about issues and principles.

Without rock-solid principles and values, what good is "action"? What meaning does it have when it isn't grounded in anything more meaningful than the moment?

[Shining Jack]

613. +1 n/t

[austin78704]

401. Mods ought to lock this thread

Divisive.

[scarletwoman]

403. Since Skinner -- one of the Administrators - started this thread, I don't think it's the mods' call.

Anyway, it's not divisive, it's very educational.

[BzaDem]

413. I think the person you replied to was being sarcastic. n/t

[Dawson Leery]

405. k/r

[ibegurpard]

407. I disagree we share the same core values

I vehemently OPPOSE policy that slams the door on government-run single-payer insurance in favor of mandates for purchasing private insurance.
An action liberal would have supported a public option...a movement liberal would be supporting single payer.
What we got was neither.
And it doesn't stop with healthcare...

[FrenchieCat]

409. It's all about the Action, baby!

[BzaDem]

412. I think big divide isn't over tactics. It is a divide over understanding of objective facts.

When people can't agree on basic objective facts, such as that the Healthcare bill is actually more progressive than the previous status quo, or that we are better off (from a progressive standpoint) that financial reform passed, there is no point about arguing over tactics. When some people see up, and say that it is down, an argument over how to get to up or down is not productive.

Admittedly, most people (even here) understand these facts. And of the people here that agree on these facts, the debate is very meaningful. To the extent that arguments of the form "we should and could have done better" are well founded in fact, they are an essential part of democracy. Within the larger group that agrees on the facts, most people would also agree that much more needs to be done. I don't even think that is even particularly controversial.

But I think the biggest and most vocal divide (even if it is a large group vs. a small group) is between two groups of people who, when confronted with the same reality, reach wildly different conclusions about facts that are more or less objective and basically have a single correct answer. When such a divide exists, debates over how far is "far enough" are completely meaningless.

[ibegurpard]

414. your opinions are not facts

[BzaDem]

415. I would be the first to say that opinions are not facts. But what I outlined aren't opinions.

Did the healthcare bill go far enough?

That is obviously a matter of opinion. How far is far enough to you? Your relative baseline will obviously affect your answer, and this baseline depends on your ideology and many other things.

Was the healthcare bill more progressive than the previous status quo?

That is not a matter of opinion. "Healthcare bill," "progressive," and "status quo" are all well defined terms, and have a single definition. There is (basically) a single correct answer to that question, not conflicting "opinions." It does not depend on your ideology, any relative baseline, or anything else.

Is it Obama's fault that we did not get a 1.5 trillion dollar stimulus bill?

Again, this is not a matter of opinion. It depends solely on what 60 Senators would have done. Some people might believe that Collins and Snowe secretly would have been willing to support such a bill, but assuming for the sake of argument that no one believes that, it is an objective question with an objective answer.

[ibegurpard]

416. "was the healthcare bill more progressive than the status quo?"

anyone's answer on this is MOST DEFINITELY an opinion.
My opinion is that it is NOT more progressive than the status quo because it forces people to buy insurance from for-profit corporations. It does very little to control said corporations because the BASIS of the law is the requirement that everyone purchase private insurance with no other alternative.
That is, in my opinion, REGRESSIVE.
the STATUS QUO required no such thing.
So, it's quite obvious we vehemently disagree not on tactics but actual outcomes.

[LAGC]

420. I agree, Health Care "Reform" was a step backwards, not forwards.

Without even a public option, mandates = corporate giveaway.

If this is the kind of "action" we can expect from "action liberals", I'll stick to my "naive idealism" thank you very much.

[BzaDem]

422. "So, it's quite obvious we vehemently disagree not on tactics but actual outcomes."

No, we disagree on facts.

Forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is unambiguously progressive.

A mandate that everyone be insured is unambiguously required for the above regulation to work. (It is a simple matter of economics, and isn't disputed among healthcare economists. To the extent that some people here dispute it, they simply are not familiar with the economics.)

The above two statements are facts, not opinions.

Furthermore, you incorrectly state (as a matter of fact) that the law does not control corporations. That is patently false. The law regulates insurance companies significantly. It tells them that they must charge the healthy and sick the same amount. They must provide a list of benefits determined by the government. They cannot deny care. They cannot charge much more than the cost they pay to the providers for the actual care.

So you and I are not disagreeing with desired outcomes. You and I are disagreeing with what actually happened. You are literally asserting that something did not happen, which on this planet and in this reality, it did in fact happen.

[ibegurpard]

426. Basis of the law is mandated purchase of private insurance

that is a FACT.
All the other regulations included in the bill can be changed MUCH more easily than the framework.
The only control on corporations would be the threat of people choosing another method of healthcare delivery...which is why single-payer was taken off the table before the debate even started and the COMPROMISE...public option...was dropped.
If the Republicans DO take control, they will be getting rid of many of the admittedly progressive regulations but the mandates will be going nowhere.
Why do you think the Insurance industry is backing the Republicans now? They got something Republicans never would have been able to pass and now they want the rest of the stuff that Democrats held their noses in order to get gone as well.

We ARE disagreeing with outcomes because I wanted an outcome that actually presented an alternative to for-profit healthcare delivery.

[LAGC]

429. You really pointed out something there.

If the Republicans gain total control of Congress, you can be damned sure the SUBSIDIES for the mandates will disappear or be scaled back, but the mandates won't. That means the working poor and middle-class are really going to feel the hurt of having to carry the full weight of the private insurance burden.

So it does still give a good reason to vote for Democrats this election cycle, just so that a bad thing can't be made worse.

[BzaDem]

433. Where do people get the idea that the Republicans like the mandate?

Out of all the inaccurate statements that I have seen about the healthcare bill, this one absolutely takes the cake. Republicans hate the mandate more than anything else in the bill. They have 22 states suing to get rid of the mandate from the rest of the bill. Their first attempt at repeal in the House was a repeal of the MANDATE (not anything else).

Yes, getting rid of the mandate would make the pre-existing condition regulations unworkable, so we would be back to the land of sick people being charged 20 times more than healthy people, but that is an incidental consequence of their desire to have big gubmit stop telling private citizens who can afford to contribute for their healthcare not to contribute.

[ibegurpard]

436. Republicans mentioned NOTHING about getting the mandate

in their laundry list of what they're going to gut in the bill.

[BzaDem]

437. That is patently false, and proves my point entirely.

Actually, it is the exact opposite of reality. The amendment so far that had a vote, was ONLY to get rid of the mandate. Nothing else. And they all voted FOR it.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38566.html

"A Republican effort to repeal the individual mandate in the Democrats’ health care overhaul failed Tuesday afternoon on a largely partisan vote.

Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, called for the repeal under a “motion to recommit” — a parliamentary tool often used by the minority party to change bills on the House floor. Never mind that the bill Camp is using for this maneuver is a small business tax bill — Republicans wanted to get Democrats on the record once again saying they back a law that requires uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance.

The procedural motion never really had a shot at passing, but that wasn't the Republicans' point. The vote was 187-230, with 21 Democrats voting to roll back the individual mandate. The votes were essentially the same as the final vote on the health care law."

--snip--

This is exactly what I am talking about. When in reality, Republicans did try to repeal the mandate, you say that they did not. If we can't agree on basic things like whether up is down or whether gravity attracts rather than repels, how is it even productive to have a conversation about tactics?

[ibegurpard]

440. political grandstanding

And I will readily admit I'm wrong if they take control and it happens.

[BzaDem]

443. "Republicans mentioned NOTHING about getting the mandate"

That's what you said. It seems they mentioned it, since they demanded a vote on repealing the mandate, and had 20 states sue to void the mandate.

[BzaDem]

430. More nonsense. The mandate is the easiest thing to get rid of from a legislative perspective.

Republican attorneys generals in 21 states are suing to have the mandate ruled unconstitutional. Not the rest of the bill -- just the mandate.

Furthermore, the mandate can be removed by reconciliation, whereas the pre-existing conditions requirement can not. That means that it only takes 50 votes to remove the mandate -- but it will take 60 votes to remove the insurance company regulations.

Single payer was not taken off the table, because that assumes it was ever on the table. It wasn't. Single payer might have gotten 10 votes in the Senate, but I'm probably being too generous. This will not change, so long as 80-85% of people in this country report being happy with their private health insurance. This has nothing to do with whether your or I WANT Single Payer. Single payer would be MUCH preferable to the status quo. It simply has to do with factual observations of reality.

"We ARE disagreeing with outcomes because I wanted an outcome that actually presented an alternative to for-profit healthcare delivery."

Again, just because you WANT an outcome, does not mean that it is possible to achieve the outcome (no matter HOW much you or I want it).

[ibegurpard]

435. We weren't talking about what was possible

We were talking about what we ended up with.
you are arguing that what we ended up with is indisputably progressive.
I am saying that is your opinion and I disagree with it.

[Hippo_Tron]

421. I actually think your post is a good example of why Skinner is right

From an action liberal's perspective, the health care bill is more progressive because it made progressive policy changes. From a movement liberal's perspective it wasn't more progressive because it further entrenched the insurance companies and delayed the day when we will actually get single payer.

Action liberals get very excited about things like banning insurance companies from denying you for a pre-existing condition, allowing people to stay on their parents' insurance until they are 26, and funding for electronic medical records. Movement liberals generally don't get excited about those sorts of things because they are primarily interested in fundamentally changing the system.

[BzaDem]

423. But that assumes that fundamental change is somehow advanced by stopping incremental change.

I see this argument all the time. If we stop "entrenching the insurance companies," the probability of Single Payer in the future will somehow increase! If we punish Democrats by voting third party, that will somehow move the country left! By avoiding passing regulatory reform, it opens up the door for more regulation! Let's kill the 800 billion dollar stimulus, because that will somehow pave the way for the enacting of a 1.5 trillion dollar stimulus!

The problem is that all of the above statements are either false by definition, or they are false based upon any objective analysis of historical data. Historically, stopping incremental change simply means that 20 years later, we will be striving for crumbs of what we could have gotten 20 years earlier.

In reality, stopping incremental change does not advance fundamental change. It kills fundamental change. It utterly destroys fundamental change. It makes it less likely that even incremental change (let alone fundamental change) will even be considered in the future (let alone enacted). Killing the healthcare bill wouldn't have advanced single payer -- it would have ensured that single payer would never been enacted in most of our lifetimes.

[LAGC]

425. I have to respectfully disagree.

Sometimes it takes things getting bad enough for long enough before people have had enough and demand REAL change.

All these piece-meal approaches that you described do is attempt to slap a band-aid on the problem, when you need to treat the underlying wound with antibiotics.

And don't tell me voting third party doesn't affect a mainstream candidate's politics. Once they see third parties polling more than a few percent, you can bet they will adjust their message accordingly to try to pick up some of those disaffected voters.

[BzaDem]

473. They do adjust their message accordingly. They move FURTHER right.

It is MUCH easier to move further right and get rational independents to vote for you than to try to please irrational third party voters. For one, the latter really can't be pleased, and additionally, switching a vote from R to D is +2 on the margin, where a 3rd party vote to D is just +1.

"Sometimes it takes things getting bad enough for long enough before people have had enough and demand REAL change."

As usual, you make the incorrect assumption that when things get "bad enough," you will actually get real change. In reality, when things get bad enough, the change you get is even more to the right. You keep assuming that there is a way to get what you want, even in cases where there isn't (no matter HOW much you scream/cry/moan/complain/sit out/etc). Because of this false perception, you come up with stranger and stranger ways of conceivably getting what you want (let's enable Republicans -- that'll show them!), only to later realize how silly that was.

Ironically though, your statement applies to Nader voters perfectly. It took a Bush to make them "had enough" and vote for Kerry in '04. It took a Bush to make reality sink in really well, in a way that couldn't be avoided or discounted. It took two wars to make them regret what they did. If they didn't switch back, we might have had to have a third war or a fourth war before they switched back, but it would have come eventually. We evolved in ways that disincentive long term irrationality (that's where the survival instinct comes from). Eventually, people will learn not to touch the stove when it's on from experience.

[ibegurpard]

428. What we disagree on is your definition of incremental change

What you see as incremental change I see as regressive.
You are saying that the changes in the curtains and windowsills for the house are an example of incrementalism when we built the foundation out of straw.

[BzaDem]

431. I think the problem is that you incorrectly identify the foundation AND the rest of the bill.

Given all your mistaken premises that I had to correct upthread, I am not surprised you don't see it as incremental change. If much of what you said were true, even I would be running away from the bill. The problem is that it is not accurate. Your statements omit significant parts of the bill, misidentify the foundation, and assume premises which range from likely false to obviously false. They are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of reality.

[ibegurpard]

438. more OPINION

It's a FACT that the healthcare bill preserved private delivery of healthcare.
It's a FACT that a public option was left out, for whatever reason.
There are MANY polls that support my position that the American public would have been supportive of AT LEAST a public option, if not single-payer outright.
the foundation is PRIVATE INSURANCE FOR EVERYONE...that you argue with that is completely inexplicable.
Yes, there are good things in it...but the basis is PRIVATE INSURANCE FOR EVERYONE.

[BzaDem]

439. "It's a FACT that the healthcare bill preserved private delivery of healthcare."

How is that AT ALL relevant to the question? The question is whether the bill is progressive COMPARED TO THE STATUS QUO. The STATUS QUO preserved the private delivery of healthcare.

You are saying it is not better than the status quo, because it preserves something that was ALREADY PRESERVED in the status quo?

Do you understand what "relative to the status quo" means? If we can't agree on basic facts and reality, we should at least be able to agree on the definition of "relative to the status quo" (though I am not hopeful).

[ibegurpard]

444. The status quo did not mandate purchase of private, for-profit health insurance.

so, NO, it's NOT more progressive than the status quo.

[BzaDem]

445. The status quo instead mandated that poor cancer patients die in their homes without care.

And you would rather we go back to that, where no one except the uber rich could afford cancer treatments, while we wait for your pipe dream of single payer to never actually be enacted.

Yeah, that sounds very progressive.

[ibegurpard]

446. as horrible as that is you're putting up a strawman argument here

The fact that I vehemently oppose being mandated to purchase private insurance from a for-profit company has NOTHING to do with how I feel about the people who can't afford to get medical care at all...it's one reason why I AM so opposed to what we had foisted upon us...because for-profit corporations are part of the problem with healthcare and shouldn't have been the only solution.

[BzaDem]

447. Actually it does. If you had your way in terms of stopping the bill, the cancer patient would die.

To put it another way, the ONLY thing stopping the poor cancer patient from dying is you being thwarted from accomplishing your objective of stopping the bill.

That may make you uncomfortable, but it doesn't make it any less true.

You would tell that cancer patient "sorry, it's not your time here, you will unfortunately suffer until we enact single payer in 50 years." You may not like that you are telling them that, but that is the effect of what you are proposing.

[ibegurpard]

448. we're done

[BzaDem]

449. Truth sometimes hurts. n/t

[ibegurpard]

450. Hey i'm not the one who had to resort to strawmans

but whatever floats your boat

[BzaDem]

451. Except it of course isn't a strawman. The bill will save many people, that otherwise would die.

That is the absolute truth. You only call it a strawman because that truth makes you uncomfortable.

[RaleighNCDUer]

517. Strawman. You are claiming that the ONLY possible options are

incremental change and no change - that in a twisted way, progressives are stopping change.

However, I don't know a single progressive who would have been upset at a public option - such as the one the president insisted must be a part of the HC bill - was included, even if it was not single-payer.

A public option would have broken the stranglehold the private insurance companies have on our healthcare system. We don't oppose the HC bill because we dislike incrementalism. We oppose it because it does, in your words, entrench the for-profit insurance companies as the final arbiters of who gets healthcare. Incrementalism is supposed to be a slow progression of change - this bill is the opposite of incrementalism, because it guarantees that whatever tweaks we may make, the final word on healthcare will come not from a doctor or even hospital administrator, but from some fucking MBA whose only interest is in the insurance company's bottom line. There is NO logical progression from this misbegotten bill to achieving universal healthcare, or even univeral health insurance. Even after it takes full effect in 2014, 25 MILLION people will remain without health insurance - and god knows how many more will have no effective healthcare, for lack of ability to pay.

There was a third option - the public option favored by the majority, a full majority, of the citizens the politicians are supposed to be serving. Ben Nelson, working for the insurance industry he came from instead of the citizens of the state he came from, wouldn't vote for that. Your inaction liberals accommodated him, instead of pressuring him, cajoling him, even bribing him to back the public option. Your inaction liberals stopped fundamental change, and then lied to YOU, saying they were enacting incremental change.

[BzaDem]

520. When so much of a post is bullshit, it's hard to know where to begin.

As I indicated upthread, when you say this bill goes in the wrong direction, that indicates a problem with your basic understanding (or lackthereof) of reality -- NOT the bill itself.

In reality, the bill actually moves us in the right direction. Given that a public option/single payer was not feasible, it was this or nothing, and I would like you to speak to the poor cancer patient why they have to die in your push to stop the bill, so that you can raise your hopes for your pipe dream of single payer that will never actually happen.

You also presume we accommodated people like Ben Nelson. How? By deciding to pass something? I mean, seriously -- where do you get this stuff? Ben Nelson would have HAPPILY killed the bill, and doing so probably would have secured his re-election. Now, he voted for a Democratic bill in a Republican state, which secures his defeat. Ben Nelson would have been more than happy to tell Obama to shove it -- and he would have received nothing but benefits from doing so.

My point isn't that fundamental change is impossible. My point is that incremental change is NECESSARY for fundamental change. It may not be SUFFICIENT (for example, there may be NO way to get what you want, no matter how much you want it). But it is necessary. If incremental change didn't pass, politicians wouldn't have touched healthcare for a generation, and despite your view on the issue, the public would have been FINE with that. Most people are healthy and don't use their insurance, and the sick are too small a minority to successfully put any kind of pressure on politicians.

So when you say they lied to me by telling me this was incremental change, that is obviously a joke. The person who is being untruthful here is you, by DENYING this is progressive change. I won't call what you're doing lying, since you do seem to be truly misinformed, but let's not mistake that for pretending anything you said in your post is somehow accurate. When Obama cares about helping sick people with pre-existing conditions more than his supposedly "progressive" critics, it is time for said critics to re-examine their flawed assumptions.

[RaleighNCDUer]

523. You don't rreally understand the word 'change', do you.

This bill did do more than tweak the already existing system - it made changing that system virtually impossible. It did not set the stage for expanding medicare, for creating a public option - and I always have to ask, WHY is a public option not feasible when more than 70% of the public wants it? It is only YOUR framing that says 'this or nothing' were the options available.

Not only was this not the best we could get, it actually prevents us from getting better in the future - that is NOT movement, that is NOT incremental change, that is NOT action. This legislation put health care in a box and nailed down the lid - because of this legislation, employer-based private insurance is THE system, and I guarantee that rather than seeing further movement toward single-payer by means of a public option, the result will be the defunding of Medicare, privatization of the VA, and moving of all government-related healthcare systems to the private sector. The military hospitals and dentists I knew as an army brat will be taken over by the private sector on a contractual basis, along with the VA. Medicare recipients will get vouchers for private insurance and Medicare will be eliminated - THAT is where the incremental change in this legislation is going to take us.

THAT is why 'movement liberals' have it right - by keeping an eye on the endgame we know if we are heading in that direction or not, while inaction liberals are all about the deal, regardless of if it advances toward the endgame or not. Anything that can be spun to look like a win for our side, nevermind the deeper ramifications.

[BzaDem]

529. It's only my framing that says "this or nothing" were the options? Do you know how to count?

Can you point out 60 senators that would have supported a public option? Of course not. This means by definition, it was this or nothing. It has nothing to do with my framing or anyone else's framing -- it has only to do with actual reality.

I mean, don't get me wrong, your substantive point is bullshit also. (Without the bill's mandate, subsidies, and insurance regulations, a public option would NEVER work. People would wait until they were sick to buy into the public option, and premiums would be orders of magnitude higher than anyone could afford.)

But even if your substantive point weren't bullshit (and the bill somehow made it harder for a public option in the future, as opposed to easier), I still would like to see you explain this to the dying poor cancer patient who wants treatment but wouldn't be able to get it because in your world (where the bill was stopped), they can be charged 100 times what a healthy person is charged. Maybe you could get them to be impressed with your 3d style chess game of thinking about the "long term" at their expense, but I really doubt it. My guess is that they would tell you to take you and your 3d chess board and shove it.

[Zenlitened]

538. "Pragmatic" liberals believe in finding consensus. Principled liberals believe in building it.

Can you point out 60 senators that would have supported a public option? Of course not. This means by definition, it was this or nothing. It has nothing to do with my framing or anyone else's framing -- it has only to do with actual reality.

"Pragmatic" in quotes because there's nothing pragmatic, IMO, in starting out from a position of fatalism or defeatism.

[BzaDem]

548. Delusional liberals believe you can get make votes instead of count them and modify accordingly.

It is really that simple. The President has almost no power on the domestic policy legislation front. The bully pulpit mostly doesn't even move the public -- it CERTAINLY doesn't move legislators.

[Zenlitened]

602. "The President has almost no power on the domestic policy legislation front."

You should make that an OP.

No, really. You should.

:rofl:

[BzaDem]

604. I would have, if multiple OPs in the past didn't nicely address the issue.

Your laugh is certainly evidence of your ignorance on the matter, but it is not evidence of the President somehow having significant power on the domestic policy legislative front independent from Congress.

In fact, most people learn this stuff in high school. The fact that people are still confused by it and can't figure it out indicates a big problem with our civics education.

[Zenlitened]

607. Make it an OP. Please.

You might learn something beyond what's taught about the Constitution in elementary school.

[BzaDem]

615. Even if I only knew what you claim, it would be a hell of a lot more than what you know.

I'm not one of these whiners who goes around saying "bbbbbut but but he didn't use the all powerful bully pulpit! he should knock some heads together! Presidents make votes, not count them!"

:rofl:

[Zenlitened]

622. Ah, the "whiners" talking point gets trotted out.

A sure sign that you've got nothing to back up your absurd statement upthread.

With a touch of "I know you are but what am I, nyah nyah!!!" thrown in for good measure.

Impressive.

But please, tell me more about how little I know. Like, to name one example, about the relationship between presidential budgets, public policy and the legislative agenda. That'd be a good place to resume your defense of your statement.

Perhaps, in that sure-to-be-insightful essay, you can also explain why this administration has failed (by its own admission) to control or even shape the narrative, and why this matters to them.

Or you could explain why presidents often find it desirable to have their own party control the Senate and the House of Representatives. I'm fairly certain there's a reason.

So many possibilities for you to back up your claims of expertise.

Should be interesting.

[BzaDem]

626. Your own words back it up.

For example, you claim that the President somehow has significant power independent of Congress to enact domestic legislation (explicit or implicit). That claim alone proves all I need to know about your ignorance about how our government actually works. It doesn't matter how much you claim you know -- that single view demonstrates to everyone knowledgeable how little you know (independent of what you think you know).

[Zenlitened]

627. So now you've added "lying about my opponent's statements"...

...to your list of qualifications?

Really covering yourself in glory, now, aren't you?

"...power independent of Congress to enact domestic legislation (explicit or implicit)."

Not even subtle. You didn't just move the goalposts, you tore 'em down and built new ones from scratch.

Stop lying, stop making shit up, and just admit the obvious: you're in over your head here.

:puke:

[BzaDem]

628. You were the one who told me to write an OP about it, as if the President did have such power. n/t

[Zenlitened]

629. I refer you back to your original statement, the one that began this amusing conversation.

Remember? Where you said "The President has almost no power on the domestic policy legislation front."

Your statement was and remains absurd, and no amount of attempted re-writing will change that.

[BzaDem]

631. Rather than being absurd, the statement is obviously correct.

Congress has power to pass domestic policy legislation. The President has the power of persuasion, and that's about it. That might or might not change a few votes in his own party, but that's it. The power of persuasion is mostly constrained based on how much legislators want to be open to persuasion. If you think he can use his power of persuasion to persuade a single Republican that otherwise would be opposed, you are dreaming. The President has very little leverage with red-state Democrats even in his own party. He has none with recalcitrant Republicans.

The extent to which the President's legislation succeeds or fails depends on his margin in the House and his margin in the Senate. FDR had far more votes in the Senate than we have now when he got his legislation passed (and even that was an era where the filibuster was rare). Bush never had 60 votes, and that's why all his big partisan legislation (SS, Immigration, ANWR drilling) failed (other than tax cuts, which only need 50 votes).

[Zenlitened]

632. Fatalism, defeatism, passivity. Got it. Odd that this is billed as "action liberalism." - n/t

[BzaDem]

634. That isn't "action liberalism" -- it is an accurate description of the executive branch's power

in passing domestic legislation (or more specifically, the lack of such power). You may not like it, but that doesn't make it not true.

It has nothing to do with the action liberalism/movement liberalism question.

[RaleighNCDUer]

540. First point - you don't 'count' the voites, you MAKE the votes.

There WERE 60 votes there, if we applied the correct pressure to the right people to bring them over. It should not be terribly difficult to convince a senator to support something that the vast majority of his constituent want. It could be as simple as "if you don't, we will put up opposition for your next reelection and YOU will be gone - you CAN'T make it without party support." Add a couple carrots to the stew, and you have a vote in your pocket. Remember, those senators were voting against something the majority of their voters supported; THAT could be hammered in the next primary until he's gone.

Second point - we GOT the fucking mandate WITHOUT the public option it was meant to support. Where is the upside to that again? The public option is the only thing that makes the mandate tolerable.

Third point: seriously, HOW, between this bill which puts all the power in the hands of the private insurers and the Citizens United decision, which empowers the very corporations that benefit to pour massive resources into any challenge to that power, does this bill set up a future public option?

As for your cancer patient, he cannot be denied coverage, but there is NOTHING that says the insurer has to make the coverage affordable. There are NO cost controls. Put it this way - if a person has no water and is dying of thirst, but has a vending machine available that has bottled water, does it do him any good to have the machine if he doesn't have the change to get the water out of the machine? That's the problem here - NO FUCKING CHANGE.

[BzaDem]

547. "but there is NOTHING that says the insurer has to make the coverage affordable"

Have you even read a summary of the bill? The bill doesn't just say the cancer patient cannot be denied coverage. It says the cancer patient can't be charged ONE PENNY MORE than a healthy person for health insurance. Everyone pays the same rate. And that rate enfoces a 15% profit/marketing/administrative costs/executive salary/etc limit, with the difference rebated to the customer.

"It should not be terribly difficult to convince a senator to support something that the vast majority of his constituent want."

His constituents were against the healthcare bill by 2-1.

"if you don't, we will put up opposition for your next reelection and YOU will be gone - you CAN'T make it without party support."

That would provide him a golden opportunity to distance himself from the party and ensure re-election. The more realistic statement is that in Nebraska, he couldn't make it WITH party support. Maybe the President could threaten to support him?

"Third point: seriously, HOW, between this bill which puts all the power in the hands of the private insurers and the Citizens United decision, which empowers the very corporations that benefit to pour massive resources into any challenge to that power, does this bill set up a future public option?"

Think a little bit. What would be easier in the future? Creating a bill with a mandate, insurance company regulations, health insurance exchanges, medical loss ratios (ALL of which would be required for a public option to not go bankrupt), AND a public option? Or just a single bill that has a single public option and nothing else?

The answer to that question should be utterly obvious. People nationwide were against the healthcare bill, with or without a public option, by 3-2. But when the public option was polled in isolation, it was supported by most. But without the stuff opposed 3-2 (like the mandate), a public option couldn't possibly work, so the public's inconsistent polling meant absolutely nothing.

On the other hand, now that we got the bulk of the bill passed, wouldn't it be MUCH easier in the future to pass a mostly-supported public option, rather than the whole shebang (which got low support)?

Your point about Citizens United doesn't support your argument at all. You wanted this bill killed. How the heck would Citizens United make passing a whole new bill from scratch with a public option any less difficult than passing a public option alone, given that we already passed the rest? It would make no difference when you compare the two. It might make BOTH harder to pass, but it doesn't make one harder to pass than the other.


In general, you don't make votes. You count them. Anyone who says otherwise has absolutely no understanding of how politics works. Politicians win victories by moving the bills towards the legislators to get their votes, not moving the legislators towards their bills to get their votes.

But EVEN aside from all of that, your substantive point about the bill somehow making it HARDER for a public option to pass in the future is dead wrong (and would cause a lot of needless deaths in the meantime).

[RaleighNCDUer]

552. Obviously, nothing I'm saying is making the least dent -

suffice it to say that, assuming the Repubs don't get into power and kill the whole thing, in ten years I expect to see you singing a different tune. For some people it takes that long for things to sink in. Like NAFTA and the Telecom bill and the elimination of Glass/Steagal and the passing of Taft/Hartly, we will see what a disaster, or at least missed opportunity, this bill was.

I guarantee:

Health care in 2020 will be more expensive, taking a larger chunk of both personal and public money, than it is today.

In 2020 we will be the only industrialized nation without universal health care, and there will be nominal third-world nations with more effective health care than us.

In 2020, we will lead the world in personal bankruptcies for medical reasons.

Our life expectancy will continue to decline. Our infant death rate will continue to climb.

The wealthy will get the best medical care in the world. The rest of us, not so much, and there will be a LOT more of the rest of us in 2020.

I guarantee it.

[BzaDem]

560. I suspect in 10 years you will be like the liberals in the 30s that opposed Social Security

They ran away from their statements 10 years earlier, just like you will in 10 years. You will act like you have ALWAYS supported this bill from the beginning.

Your new statements in this post don't even pretend to support the claim that the bill somehow moves us in the wrong direction relative to the status quo.



"Health care in 2020 will be more expensive, taking a larger chunk of both personal and public money, than it is today."

Without the bill in 2020, it would be even more expensive, taking a larger chunk of personal and public money, than it is today. (Just look at the graphs historically.)

"In 2020 we will be the only industrialized nation without universal health care, and there will be nominal third-world nations with more effective health care than us."

Without the bill, we will be the only industrialized nation without universal health care, and there will be nominal third-world nations with more effective health care than us.

"In 2020, we will lead the world in personal bankruptcies for medical reasons."

Without the bill, we would have lead the world in personal bankruptcies for medical reasons.

"Our life expectancy will continue to decline. Our infant death rate will continue to climb."

Without the bill, our life expectancy would have continued to decline. Our infant death rate would have continued to clime.

"The wealthy will get the best medical care in the world. The rest of us, not so much, and there will be a LOT more of the rest of us in 2020."

Without the bill, the wealthy will get the best medical care in the world. The rest of us, not so much, and there would have been a LOT more of the rest of us in 2020.

---

Do you see a pattern? Many of your statements are completely inaccurate (which seems to be par for the course in this thread), as I explained in earlier posts. But if you change them so they instead say "without the bill," they all become true.

[RaleighNCDUer]

563. Don't be disingenuous - I am perfectly aware that all those statements

are true if you add 'without the bill'.

I contend that they REMAIN true, despite the bill. Because the bill makes NO fundamental change and actually prevents fundamental change.

You'll see.

[BzaDem]

565. None of those statements support the idea that it does anything to prevent fundamental change in the

future (even if true). They just support the idea that the bill isn't as good as it could have been (again, even if true, many of which aren't).

Of course, I'm not arguing the bill produced the best policy outcome relative to all the policy choices. I'm arguing the bill produced the best policy outcome relative to the legislative choice. So those statements don't seem to say much even if taken at face value.

[RaleighNCDUer]

566. Then explain HOW making all decisioins on healthcare dependent upon

insurance companies sets up an alternative to the insurance companies. particularly since Citizens United means they can spend hundreds of millions in preventing any such change.

I'd really like to know.

[BzaDem]

603. All decisions on healthcare were ALREADY dependent upon insurance companies.

Sure, you could go without insurance, but that just meant you would die if you needed cancer treatment and had any assets or income. So that wasn't really a valid option.

Half the insurance expansion is using Medicaid, so it actually REDUCES the number of people with healthcare that use insurance (as a percentage of all people with healthcare). Furthermore, it limits families of 4 making up to 88 thousand dollars a year to paying anywhere from 0% to 9.5% of their income on premiums (lower percentage with lower incomes, higher percentage with higher incomes), so it will tremendously reduce the number of medical bankruptcies (despite your assertions to the contrary).

[RaleighNCDUer]

619. did you even read what you wrote?

1) All decisions on healthcare were ALREADY dependent upon insurance companies.

Yes. So where is the change?

2) Half the insurance expansion is using Medicaid, so it actually REDUCES the number of people with healthcare that use insurance (as a percentage of all people with healthcare).

Please get back to me when you decipher that into English.

3) Furthermore, it limits families of 4 making up to 88 thousand dollars a year to paying anywhere from 0% to 9.5% of their income on premiums (lower percentage with lower incomes, higher percentage with higher incomes), so it will tremendously reduce the number of medical bankruptcies (despite your assertions to the contrary).

Do you REALLY think that it is the premiums that are driving people into bankruptcy? Seriously? Are you aware that over half the medical bankruptcies occur involve people that HAVE insurance?

You continue to believe that healthcare is a privilege, not a right. That's the only explanation I can come up with. We have the best healthcare system in the world for rich people. Rich people from all over the world come here for treatment. While ordinary Americans go to Canada and Mexico or Europe (if they are ordinary upper-middle clase), and the rest of us just try to not get sick.

We have a broken healthcare system, and applied a Dollar Store bandaid of a health insurance fix. The system is still just as broken as it was before, but the at least the insurance companies are healthier.

[TriMera]

624. +1,000,000 n/t

[BzaDem]

625. The percentage of the insured that are insured by the government will go up.

That's what happens when half of the expansion of insurance happens through Medicaid. Of the 30 million newly insured under this bill, 15 million of them will be on Medicaid. If you can't understand that, you have a problem with English in general, so no amount of deciphering will help.

"1) All decisions on healthcare were ALREADY dependent upon insurance companies.

Yes. So where is the change?"

Pre-existing conditions, medical loss ratios, government-mandated benefits, government-mandated actuarial values (i.e. limits on deductibles/cost sharing), no lifetime caps, etc. The fact that you take such a narrow view of the word "change" is a problem with you, not the bill.

"Do you REALLY think that it is the premiums that are driving people into bankruptcy? Seriously? Are you aware that over half the medical bankruptcies occur involve people that HAVE insurance?"

Many people are driven into bankruptcy because they can't afford the premiums at all. They end up bankrupt after going to the ER and getting socked with a hospital bill. For these types of bankruptcies, limiting premiums from 0-9% of one's income is a tremendous help. Others go bankrupt because they have shitty insurance that doesn't cover anything above X, or barely covers anything above X. Well, this bill BANS that type of insurance forever. Deductibles and cost sharing are limited, annual/lifetime caps banned, health rating banned, full benefits mandated, percentage of profits/overhead/salaries capped. Please explain to me how medical bankruptcies aren't DRAMATICALLY reduced after this bill takes full effect, taking into account all of the above.

"You continue to believe that healthcare is a privilege, not a right."

Why do you want to change the subject to what I believe SHOULD happen? We are not talking about that. Practically everyone here agrees with what SHOULD happen. We are talking about what DID happen, relative to the previous status quo.

[jgraz]

427. And here we have an example of a third group.

"Fantasy Liberals"

[BzaDem]

434. I would actually agree about the existance of this third group, though I would probably disagree

with you about who is in it.

After all, if someone believes the only way to achieve fundamental change is to block all change as much as possible, how could that logically be considered anything other than a "fantasy liberal?"

Mostly, people in this group believe that if we stop "entrenching the insurance companies," the probability of Single Payer in the future will somehow increase!. Or, if we punish Democrats by voting third party, that will somehow move the country left. Or perhaps, by avoiding passing regulatory reform, it opens up the door for more regulation. Or even, let's kill the 800 billion dollar stimulus, because that will somehow pave the way for the enacting of a 1.5 trillion dollar stimulus.

I honestly couldn't think of a better name for the group than what you came up with. Thank you very much for the idea. The two groups that Skinner mentioned are actually both subsets of the vast majority of Democrats and liberals, and relatively large majority of people on DU. The debate between them isn't really that contentious, and there are many points of agreement. The real conflict is between the large segment that makes up both of those two groups, and the remaining fantasy liberals.

[jgraz]

477. Do you find it easier to win an argument if you make up both sides?

I'd think it would be. I hope you two enjoy your conversation.

[austin78704]

487. Those are opinions

Much of the divide comes from people confusing facts with opinions.

[kenny blankenship]

442. Real Action Liberals are on strike in France

[readmoreoften]

467. + Plus a gazillion.

[YOY]

528. You sir kick ass.

As do they.

[Ignis]

646. Aaaaaaand...SCENE!

Nice work, everyone; remember to clean your props before you put them away.

[Blue_In_AK]

452. You may say that I'm a dreamer

but I'm not the only one. J. Lennon

[scheming daemons]

453. More simply: One group gets things done, the other group talks about the things they'd like done

...

[BzaDem]

456. ... but tremendously damanges the chances of actually getting them done. +1.

[readmoreoften]

457. This is a bogus pap to make conservative democrats sound both like "liberals" and "actors"

>>"Action liberals are policy-oriented pragmatists who use their heads to get something important done, even if their arid deal-making and Big Money connections often turn off the base."<<

Yes, but they often get nothing done; they are often cynical; their "pragmatism" is little more than retaining power; and their "big money connections" often equals union busting and selling out their constituents to the devil. This "action liberal" is manly and "superheroey" language for CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRAT, not "liberal" (unless you mean neoliberal.)

The characterization of people driven to fight for actual reforms as "emotional" and "illogical" is flat out offensive and, worse, it's ignorant of how reform actually comes about. There is absolutely nothing--and I mean nothing--that this backroom dealing "action liberal aka beltway insider" has ever done for civil rights or labor law. All of this progress has been won in the streets. Not by "movement liberals" but usually by "movement socialists, leftists, and unionists."

The Democrats served to make sure that the gains won in the streets were instituted in the state--so that the atavistic and corrupt couldn't take the nation backwards. Now the "action liberals" are all about wheeling and dealing with their wall street criminal friends. And what has that gotten us? Where we are now.

Terrible article. Terrible terms. Altogether silly and ahistorical.

[BzaDem]

469. The same could be said about making people who fight to kill all change sound "progressive."

After all, if change is only achieved by ensuring that a group of people consistently lose their battle to kill change, how could anyone seriously call that group "progressive?" If a group wants to achieve fundamental change by killing all change, wouldn't "movement liberal" be exactly the opposite of a correct description of the group?

[Anthony Noel]

495. No...

Progressives don't want to kill change. They want the change to be meaningful. Forcing everyone to buy insurance from a system the president himself declared "broken" is NOT meaningful change. Given them the opportunity to buy it from a government-run entity is.

Allowing the military - of which the president is Commander in Chief - to interminably delay the recision of DADT is not meaningful change.

Continuing to hold foreign nationals without being charged is not change.

The list goes on and on, but your inference that progressives want only total change all at once is inaccurate. But we do insist on change that moves the issue in the right direction, not which perpetuates the very issues we entrusted - by our votes - this president and congress to begin solving.

[BzaDem]

498. That just shows that you do not understand what "meaningful chage" is or how it is accomplished

not that the President hasn't enacted meaningful change given an opportunity to do so.

Your sentence about healthcare has already been dealt with at length a few subthreads above, so you can read that there. In summary, given that single payer or a public option have no chance of passing (no matter HOW much you want it or HOW much you think otherwise), what would you say to the people who will die from otherwise treatable cancer that would DIE if the bill were stopped?

The fact that the President is the Commander in Chief means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in terms of DADT. Dick Cheney is one of the only people that believes that being the CIC means you can violate any enacted Congressional statute (and his usees of this belief was torture, illegal wiretapping, ignoring the courts, etc).

The US government has held foreign nationals without charge since 1789. While there are some cases where Obama could be doing a better job, the issue is much more complicated than what you make of it.

"But we do insist on change that moves the issue in the right direction"

The issue isn't that he isn't moving us in the right direction -- it is that you are not correctly evaluating the direction he is moving us in, when there is basically only one objective answer to that question (and it is the opposite of the one you give).

[Name removed]

589. Deleted message

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

[Anthony Noel]

630. Trying this again...

No, I'm afraid the problem is that you are putting words in my mouth, BzaDem, and stating things yourself which have no basis in fact. I'll begin with a case of the latter:

Just because you say so (and sprinkle ALL CAPS generously throughout) does not make a fact your claim that the P.O. had no chance of passing. It did, through reconciliation - and this "enacting meaningful change" president you so vehemently defend refused to go there, instead cutting a deal to ditch the P.O. before congressional debate on it had even begun.

Now, to putting words in my mouth: I never said (nor even inferred) that the president, as CIC, could (let alone should) violate any enacted law. He can as CIC, however, with full constitutional impunity, order the Joint Chiefs to suspend enforcement while the possibility of repeal is studied and/or voted on. Further, as his party's leader, he could have directed the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader to introduce legislation which, if enacted, would have made thae repeal law. The fact that he has not - even after a federal court has found the law unconstitutional, and has refused to do so "because that is the normal procedure that is followed when any standing law is struck down in the courts" - constitutes perhaps the most direct definition possible of the very lack of meaningful change to which I refer.

And lastly, back to words of your own which have no basis in fact: Regardless whether the US has held foreign nationals without charge for 20 minutes or 200 years, we would not tolerate another country doing the same to our own citizens, and so the issue is no more complex that I am characterizing it, whatsoever. It is a morally reprehensible - not to mention internationally illegal - policy.

In closing, the issue is exactly that he is clearly not not moving the right direction, and the above three examples prove it.

[BzaDem]

636. "Further, as his party's leader, he could have directed the Speaker of the House"

"and the Senate Majority Leader to introduce legislation which, if enacted, would have made thae repeal law."

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, since it appears you have not been following this. Not only did Obama demand to Pelosi and Reid that such legislation be introduced -- it WAS introduced. Furthermore, it was voted on. It passed the House. It passed a very divided committee in the Senate after intense lobbying from the Whitehouse. It only died because Republicans filibustered it on the Senate floor.

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about though. So many critiques of the President are not based in what actually happened.

You are saying you wouldn't let the CIC violate any enacted law, but he does have the power to suspend the law? Suspending the law would be violating the law. The law does not allow him to generally suspend it. The fact that he is CIC is irrelevant -- he may as well be postmaster general. If the law does not give the President discretion, than the President does not have discretion. To say otherwise is to make a Cheneyesque argument that the President can violate/suspend laws because he is the President.

Holding foreign nationals without charge is often not illegal under international law or any other law. It may very well be illegal depending on the circumstances, but it is not illegal per se. There are many cases where it is legal. Prisoners of war are held without charge all the time, and that is obviously legal. I'm not saying the issue isn't complicated, and that everything Obama doing on this issue is perfect or even good, but you paint an extremely simplistic picture of an extraordinarily complicated issue.

"Just because you say so (and sprinkle ALL CAPS generously throughout) does not make a fact your claim that the P.O. had no chance of passing."

It had no chance of passing NOT just because I said it did, but because that is the truth of the matter. This is true for many reasons. The PO would not have even passed the House the second time around, given how many PO supporters who voted for it the first time voted against the whole bill the second time. Furthermore, the Public Option would have been destroyed by Byrd rule points of order. What's left wouldn't even be worth passing. Republicans would have gone through the PO section line by line, stripping out any line that didn't have direct budgetary impact, and waiving their points of order would have required 60 votes.

The truth is, passing a public option required 60 votes, and Lieberman killed it because he had a grudge against liberals for almost unseating him in 2006. It would have passed if all 60 Democrats supported it, but Lieberman's defection prevented that (and allowed a few others to oppose it for political reasons without affecting the outcome). It could not have passed through reconciliation in any meaningful form. People who say otherwise do not understand the Byrd rule, and do not understand the extremely fragile dynamics revolving around the House vote in March.

[Anthony Noel]

637. Not the truth...

...Lieberman's role in killing the PO as you describe it is the Dem party line. It in no way accounts for the lack of leadership on the Administration's part that's at the crux of the matter, i.e., the fact that Lieberman was not stripped of his committee chairmanship and thrown out of the Democratic caucus, for example. And again, reconciliation could have been used to include a PO in the same way it was used to pass the health care legislation.

Further evidence, from the progressive standpoint, is the classic fold of Kuchinch in the House and Feingold in the Senate on their PO pledges, along with 59 and 29 others in these respective chambers. Either of these coalitions could have stopped passage of the shit-sandwich, three-steps-back health care bill, but Obama chose to threaten THEM - large contingents of progressives - rather than smaller-in-number ConservaDems like Lieberman. If that is "action liberalism," you can keep it!

As to the DADT, if Gates can suspend enforcement (which he did), Obama certainly can - and it is his standing as CIC which opens that door. The Senate fold on DADT is yet another case of Obama not leading. At some point you go to the Senate and threaten people with losing the party's endor$ement in the next election if they don't wake the hell up. Obama - more accurately Rahm Emanuel, though Obama has ultimately responsibility - not only refused to do this again and again on issue after issue during this administration's first two years, but actually thought by NOT doing so they were "winning"! The failures on the PO, on DADT, on EFCA, on Cap-and-Trade and the severely watered-down FinReg are clear evidence that Dems compromised as if they were in the minority, rather than leading as the majority they actually were.

For all these reasons, what this tread characterizes as "action" liberals (I call them "Clintonites") are the clearest indication of what's wrong with the Democratic Party. You don't see Righties coddling Republicans who, for example, support abortion. Why do Lefties tolerate spineless Dems to the point that the party which is supposed to represent them has become a corporate-owned, center-right party at best?

[EFerrari]

471. I'm watching Alter on BookTv right now, argue that Obama

isn't anti-colonial but affirming of American society. :crazy:

[Name removed]

494. Deleted message

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

[Smashcut]

554. EXACTLY

Thank you.

[Lilith Velkor]

556. Ah yes, conservadems are manly, whereas liberals are silly little women

Couldn't help but notice that.

[Jamastiene]

468. The same could be said about the difference between

short term investors and long term investors. Short term investors are constantly trading and fretting over losing a dime here or there. Long term investors know that if they invest wisely and let it sit, they will get greater returns later down the road. That takes wisdom and patience.

"Movement liberals" are like long term investors. We know true change is not something that you can get by constantly caving to the Republicans' and Blue Dog Democrats' every whim. Actually, we realize you cannot get any lasting or meaningful change that way at all.

I would rather see the "dreamy idealists" eventually win and get laws that make some real change and have longevity, such as those that came about during MLK's time than be told that letting the right wingers put all their nonsense into every bill is some kind of win. It is not.

Actually, allowing the right wing to constantly do that can be harmful to our long term goals, because any and all new legislation will now have to be combed over with a fine toothed comb to make sure it does not go against all of their extra nonsense allowed in previous legislation.

On top of all that, and even with that legislative mine field already in existence, allowing them to repeat themselves in each new piece of legislation is wasting tax payers money all for them to campaign from the floors of Congress. For instance, the redundant Stupak Amendment in the HCR legislation. With the Hyde law already in effect, that was completely redundant and unnecessary. We are not paying them to repeat themselves and campaign from Congress like that. That was nothing more than political cover for him.

One thing "action liberals" need to realize is that the right wing are like a bunch of spoiled brats. Instead of finally putting our foot down during the last two years, when we had the chance, our leaders squandered the opportunity and the right wing are still a bunch of spoiled brats.

Heeding the wisdom of the "movement liberals" could have put a stop to that childish behavior, but the "action liberals" would not listen to us. The "action liberals" were afraid to act on the mandate given to them in 2008. So, now we don't have the control to get anything done. The rest will be lame duck back and forth bullshit and we will have to cede even more of our goals to get anything at all passed.

I hardly call that progress. It looks more like a buildup to endless court battles and a huge mess down the road. Even a lab rat learns that if pressing a certain lever gives a nasty shock, that means to quit doing it. Yet, "action liberals" continue to push that lever without learning that kowtowing to the right hasn't worked a single time yet.

Here we "dreamy liberals" have been pointing out a small group of levers that might require a couple extra steps and the ability to stand up to the right, but would achieve better benefits for the country down the road and all "action liberals" can do is ignore us and continue to press the lever that leads to more and more poison from the right wing. Sure, the treats might taste ok right now, but the long term effects will be pure poison in our country, because those hasty actions have led us down a slippery slope we will not be able to recover from in our lifetimes.

The right wing now has the power to stop us at every turn and the Tea Party movement (as extremely dangerous as it is) will become our new adversaries IN government. We have effectively ceded more to the right when we should have taken the country left to highlight what kind of extremists that Tea Party bunch really are. Instead, we ceded to the right even more than we already had before and emboldened and gave credence to the Tea Party.

[BzaDem]

470. Yeah. You are correct -- they are like long term investors who invest in Lehamn Brothers in July '08

for the long term. Each order of magnitude drop in the stock price is more and more a signal to them that they are on the right track. Now, with the stock price at around three cents, they know that the sun is just around the corner.

Your post suffers from the fatal incorrect assumption that you will get what you want by waiting. Your whole post falls apart if you correct for that incorrect assumption.

You keep saying "If we have incremental change, etc etc, we will never have fundamental change." But why do you assume that you WILL have fundamental change if the incremental change fails? Why do you assume that just because you really want something, you will EVER get it (no matter how much you want it)?

More generally, you are making the incorrect assumption that if X doesn't get what you want, "Not X" WILL get you what you want.

[pinboy3niner]

476. I have no stomach for these internecine battles

This is 2010, the mid-term elections, and the President is not running for anything. Disappointment in Obama isn't really relevant to our current electoral battles.

Some will not vote for (or will not cast a vote at all) for some of our Blue Dog dems. In some cases, I can hardly blame them.

But this is an important election, and I'm phone-banking and contributing (more than I can afford) to get our candidates in office and prevent the whackjobs and even the sane-but-wrong RW candidates from winning.

To me, the dichotomy between 'action liberals' and 'movement librals' is merely a distraction. My feet are in both camps, so where's my camp? If I sympathise with the frustrations of gay equality activists and Hispanic civil rights activists, where does that put me?

I'll leave that question for later. Right now, I'm only concerned with electing our dem candidates.

[JDPriestly]

478. I came by my movement liberal genes honestly -- inherited from both

sides of the family. I'm extremely proud of that fact. These genes go way back -- at least to the War of 1812 and probably to the Revolution. They survived the Civil War and were extremely active during the Gilded/Progressive Age as well as the Great Depression. Thank you, dear genes, for your wonderful gift to my life. You have served me well -- and humanity.

And now those genes march on in my wonderful children who are helping people every way they can.

[pinboy3niner]

484. Hate to have to break it to you, bro...

...but it's not genes, it's smarts. And family tradition.

As much as we mock our political opponents, some of them are also very smart (but misguided) people.

You, my friend, just got lucky. Just like the rest of here.

Critical thinking seems to be in short supply. Except here.

Perhaps that's why we fight among ourselves so much. :)

[JDPriestly]

581. That is definitely why we fight among ourselves.

As for the genes, of course I was joking.

As for how smart conservatives are -- I question your view.

Smart people are always looking for ways to adapt to new situations. Smart people look beyond short-term solutions to think about the long-term consequences of their acts and decisions.

Conservatives tend to look back, not forward. They tend to think short-term. So I think liberals really are smarter.

[suzie]

507. Wow. So those of us who came from conservative parents and made the decision

to become "liberals" will just never measure up to some. Do you have some pejorative term that we should call ourselves, "liberal trash" perhaps?

I spent my whole career helping people, as did my spouse. But I guess that it didn't count, because we didn't have the right genetic code.

Shame on us.

[JDPriestly]

580. Look at this way. You are changing the genetic code in your family.

So you are doing a lot more than I ever had to.

[JonLP24]

485. I don't know, I just care about the issues

For example, I would like President Obama to allow Bagram detainees the right to use Habaes Corpus to challenge their detentions. I also like the many laws Obama enacted like the Unemployment Compensation Act that he signed last summer this year.

It depends on the issues with me. I'm not someone who hates him so much that I can't recognize anything he good he has done nor am I someone who likes him so much that I can't recognize or acknowledge anything bad that he is doing. This goes for all politicians with me and out of Democrats, Blue Dogs in the Senate are the ones I'm very angry with.

[Le Taz Hot]

488. Oh, fer crissake!

Talk about a false choice! I can't believe you'd put this up. OK, on second thought . . .

[CTLawGuy]

492. who were/are the prominent "movement liberals" since 1980

and what massive social change for the better have they managed to create? In 30 years?

Ralph Nader? Got Bush elected in 2000. Not much else.
Dennis Kucinich? been in office 13 years, hasn't done anything of real significance. He has a single payer health care bill which he just sort of sits on and waits for someone else to do something with. (Has he not heard of a discharge petition?)
Russ Feingold? there was campaign finance reform. (No wait he was working with a REPUBLICAN on that, which is a big no no, so we can't count that.)

Contrast that with the "action liberals" like Obama who've gotten HCR, Wall St. Reform, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, etc., which, while not perfect or complete, constitute progress. I'll take that over what "movement liberals" have done.

[JonLP24]

497. Those two

Kucinich and Feingold, all they can do is vote. Obama just signs the bill so while you give him credit for HCR and others, he needed Congress to vote for it so he can sign it. I'm sure Kucinich voted for many bills the President signed so in my mind Kucinich and Feingold get credit in my eyes for how they vote. I really like Feingold's stance on civil liberties and the DP. Only one to vote against the PATRIOT ACT. Well he wasn't successful, I feel that is more important than an "action liberal" voting for it as a means to get things done. In fact he led a filibuster against a renewal of the act, however it wasn't successful but managed to get some minor things changed but still voted against it. I like the fact that he keeps on fighting because that disgusting piece of legislation is really an assault on our civil liberties and that is what matters to me. It is not better for me for him to ignore the issue and try to be an "action liberal" whatever that means.

[CTLawGuy]

617. they can do more than vote

they can use the discharge petition to push their bills through congress. if Kucinich were to get 218 signatures on a discharge petition he could force Pelosi to put the single payer bill up for an immediate house vote. That is how the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform bill passed while Rs controlled the house.

[Prism]

503. The LGBT community for a start. They left the so-called action liberals in the dust.

We have brought about a sea change in American culture, going from mentally disordered and prosecutable, to majorities supporting things like civil unions and gay marriage. In fact, we've now got super majorities on issues like anti-discrimination laws and DADT repeal.

You know who's horrible on those issues, who runs in fear of them, who fails to lead on them?

The "action" liberals, whose constant refrain is that LGBT people must abide a persistent, malicious, eternal inaction for their own good.

When 75% of America is staring at these "action" liberals and wondering why they're totally inert.

A Democratic President is now on the other side of the gay marriage issue from a majority of Americans.

The only action I see here is retreat and cowardice.

Oh, and you're welcome.

[CTLawGuy]

618. A majority of Americans support gay marriage?

Where do you get that from? certainly not Maine and California.

Progress is made by people like Howard Dean, who in 2000 (before he became a darling of the left), in response to a court decision, and along with saying he was "uncomfortable" with the idea of two men getting married, signing a compromise civil unions bill (that VT Republicans actually allowed to reach his desk) in a private ceremony with no fanfare. It's not pretty but it works.

[Mosaic]

506. What kind of name is Alter?

Sounds phony to me, as this division.

[Catherina]

508. This is such insulting framing. I'm disappointed you support it as an Admin.

This thread is really bothering me.

So now it's dreaming to be for equal rights, fair healthcare, public education and against Obama's terrible wars that our tax dollars are paying for? It's dreaming to be against the corporate power that runs Washington and gets government approval to steal from us, destroy our food supply, and put investor profit over jobs? It's dreaming to want war criminal persecuted for the crimes they committed in our name and on our childrens' heads? Worse it's dreaming not to silently endorse the continuation of the same crimes, this massive blood harvest?

The truth is that America is in decline and being changed for the worse. Some of us aren't ok with that and it has nothing to do with day-dreaming.

If you think Alter's sappy framing explains the divide here, which is simply a reflection of the divide out in the real world, you're not only missing the boat, you're making matters worse.

The gleeful posts from the those who unfailingly excuse the worst actions of this Administration and insult principled voters who dare to demand more than happy press releases should be your first clue.

The second clue, barring the comments which take time to read, should be the low number of recs and the high number of unrecs.

I'm disappointed without even the benefit of surprise.

[treestar]

530. No, that's not what was meant by dreaming

Obviously. Clearly it's about times when such equality has not been even started to be worked for. Somebody has the dream it can be so one day. In 1960 one might have dreamed of the day there might be a woman President.

[sufrommich]

509. Well Skinner, as the old adage goes...

No good deed goes unpunished. The paranoia in this thread is hilarious.

[JoePhilly]

510. I've tended to also see the divide on DU as one of Tactics versus Strategy

There are tactical goals and strategic goals. And people on DU tend to debate about whether, for any particular issue, we should attempt to achieve limited tactical goals, or more aggressive strategic goals. We also seem to debate the priority and ordering of these goals.

What makes the situation worse is the mess Obama inherited. There is absolutely no shortage of Strategic or tactical goals that need to be accomplished.

[treestar]

531. Well put. And most of the enmity occurs where posters jump from

disagreement about how to accusing others of not supporting the goal at all.

[JoePhilly]

568. Exactly.

My personal view is that, given the level of obstructionism, and polarization, its going to be very hard to get huge policy wins right now, and so we should be celebrating every single tactical win, no matter how small ... and then use those to create momentum.

But we don't. Instead, we fight us.

The GOP has been trying to overturn Roe V Wade since the day it passed. They had Bush, a conservative supreme court, and majorities in Congress. Did they get it done? No. Do they fight each other about it .... no.

The GOP's goal is to ensure that the Dems accomplish as little as possible. Our infighting helps ensure that we accomplish as little as possible.

And the GOP laughs.

The Media takes GOP opposition to Obama and combines it with "liberal" opposition to Obama ... and then they use the total to claim that "Obama is doing too much".

In my view, we would all be smarter to be LOUD in our support for ANY accomplishment, and then, ADD that "while this is a good start, our long term goal is X".

That framing shows SUPPORT for any move to the left, no matter how small. Small victories lead to bigger victories.

George Washington did not commission ships to invade England. He won small battles. And when necessary, he retreated. At times, Strategic Progress actually requires some amount of "retreat". Its sucks. But you can't simply "win" with one move.

Especially when the forces you face are as well financed as they are now.

[treestar]

575. Right! While we then hear complaints about how the Rs get

things done their way while in power (in spite of the fact they don't), ignoring that the Republicans don't infight like that! And you've hit the nail on the head with saying we should all support the health care plan and call it a victory towards our goal - that's what the Republicans do and that's why they get more of what they want when in power.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

511. I think Alter is pissing into the wind,

and to make things worse, he forgot to unzip, in his besotted state.

What is this ridiculous need to create two distinct camps on any issue, especially, when the truth is far more complex and facetted.

What a ridiculous argument.

[mcollins]

514. Tough question as I don't agree with the descriptive.

Am I idealistic for the cause? Yes. Do I take action to move us closer to that cause? Yes. Am I a dreamer? Yes. Do I sometimes think that getting a little of what we want for now is good enough, rather than to get nothing? Yes.

Where does that leave me? Outside the conscripts of this poll.

[Bluenorthwest]

515. Hey Skinner. Why do you feel the need to have labels?

What do you get out of having a label for me? Why do you need that? How does that serve you? You should start with explaining why labels are a good thing, as you feel that they are.
What's your objective in this? What do you seek? How would these labels help to elect more Democrats?

[myrna minx]

516. This is a false choice.

I see where this is heading.

[blondeatlast]

557. I'm trying to think the best here, but...

yeah, pretty sure I do too.

[inna]

600. Clearly, this is a false choice - but I'm absolutely at a loss where

it is supposed to be heading.


Perplexing and disappointing. :shrug:

[Renew Deal]

519. DU is a diverse community....

you know the rest. This is more proof of that and I like it. :D

[phleshdef]

526. I'm a little bit of both. Its a human being thing.

[YOY]

532. Are the DLC corporate "moderates" trying to "take it back" again?

That went so well last time.

Let's just throw out the encyclopedia already. It will make things so much easier.

[Lilith Velkor]

561. You taking about that 'solidarity democrat' bullshit?

Yeah, that went over well. It's like these people just grab leftist terminology at random in a piss poor attempt to market themselves as such.

Reminds me of my punk club days, when every now and then some redneck would show up, see a moshpit forming, and dive in and start punching people in the face. They always seemed so surprised when we would immediately stop moshing, knock them down, and kick them until they got the fuck off the dancefloor.

[YOY]

588. Yup.

Yet they are only "solidarity democrats" in the cases that suit them.

[DirkGently]

595. Seem fair. And not a bad analogy, either.

[Ignis]

647. There you go, being all "dreamy" again.

:banghead:

[Missy Vixen]

558. Pardon me if I don't answer the poll question

I'm wondering what the purpose of posting this quote was in the first place.

[Dr.Phool]

572. "Is that a real poncho, or is that a Sears poncho?"

"Don't you know, you could make more money as a butcher? So don't you waste your time on me."

Frank Zappa

[Hell Hath No Fury]

574. I find Alter's labeling incorrect.

It has ALWAYS been what he refers to as "movement" liberals who have taken and CREATED the true "action", created the forward movement towards the ideological goal, created the public interest and backing, created the demand of the people from our elected officials.

Sadly, too often Alter's "action liberals" blunt that demand, blunt the true action of the people to satisfy those who have paid them off, to satisfy personal political ambitions, or because they lack personal courage. "Action", indeed.

As someone who would categorize herself as both movement AND true action, I am not opposed to compromise. But don't expect me to compromise modern Democratic principles, compromise the safety/security/well being of the people over corporations/the powerful, and sure as SHIT don't expect me to elect a politician to help slit my own throat with legislation that will undermine me or my family.

And Rahm Emmanuel and his Corporate-loving ilk that has infested the Democratic Party can go suck my dick.

[Capitalocracy]

582. I'm a sit-on-my-ass liberal. nt

[Deep13]

583. I object to the expression "dreamy idealists."

There is nothing either dreamy or idealistic in taking the long view. Looking at overall trends and the effects of specific policy decisions on them is necessary if we are to plan beyond merely today. I care about what happens next year, but I also care about what happens in a century.

[Rex]

587. I think he picked a bad use of the terms 'action' and 'movement'.

Having said that, I describe to neither because both represent his miscontruct of what a liberal is, imho.

[MellowDem]

590. You've opened the can of worms again...

Unfortunately, threads like these are just bait for people who identify strongly one way or the other to bash the other side. The truth is that everyone is both "types", but many on DU LOVE dichotomies, they just can't get enough of them, and this is a great excuse to steryotype themselves as holier than thou and paint the other side as selfish heathens.

To the sane/polite/reasonable people on this thread, thank you.

To the impolite/rude/bullying people on this thread, you hurt DU.

[McCamy Taylor]

591. Action, of course. If your ideology does not influence policy, it is just a load of crap.

Here is to LBJ, the best action liberal of my lifetime.

Here is a poll: Do you think America would be better off with two more Eugene Mccarthy's or one more LBJ?

[McCamy Taylor]

594. Even those who are extremely far left (like me) should still work to effect change in whatever way

they can. There will never be a "perfect" Democratic candidate, but I am not willing to throw up my hands and do nothing. We can help things through our jobs. I left private medical practice and provide health care for the poor, because the poor need it. Sure, I make less money. But, I am making a difference.

Live your life as a leftist. That is the way to change things.

[jp11]

597. I reject the premise and associated definitions, furthermore I wish I could hide this thread like

I've hidden the offshoots of it cause I'm pretty much sick of the argument. One see it one way the other see it another, and some kind of see it another way a thousand different pretty labels that make us all feel good aren't going to change anything if we don't show some respect and consideration for the 'others' POV w/o casually dismissing them as being wrong etc.

[mmonk]

599. It is my opinion that you can't be a movement liberal without also

being an action liberal.

[usregimechange]

610. Both really, depends on the election cycle/issue.

[subsuelo]

614. The "divide" is simply the more conservative among us vs the more enlightened.

Dress it up however you like, won't change what it really is.

The article serves to distort the truth of the matter, imo.

[greyl]

633. I don't like that cleavage. nt

[AngryAmish]

649. Action liberal is almost the definition of me.

Drunk golfing asshole is another.