Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)

TygrBright

(20,760 posts)
Thu Aug 6, 2015, 01:28 PM Aug 2015

The Penny Drops... [View all]

I admit, sometimes it takes me a while to figure things out. I do not doubt that many folks are already way ahead of me on this one, but I do get there eventually.

See, the thing is, I want a Democrat to win the next Presidential election. I haven't made up my mind which one yet-- there are things I like and dislike about most of them. But every one of them is so exponentially better than anyone running for the GOP nomination that I'm fairly sure they'd do a lot better as President.

So I look at the records of each Dem candidate, try to plow through the hype and the spin, look at what others like and dislike, and try to make up my mind how to order my preferences and express my support. And the thing that kept baffling me was not the people pointing out the manifold excellencies of their own preferred candidates. Nor was it those who compared their preferred candidates to other Dem candidates in explaining why they liked them better. That's pretty standard primary fare, and while it's not always helpful, it's generally not doing any harm in terms of the most important thing: Keep the White House out of GOPie hands for another 4-8 years.

No, the thing that kept baffling me was the folks who, rather than explaining why they like their preferred candidate, or even why they prefer them over other candidates, seem to focus primarily on slagging off other Dem candidates.

Finally, the penny dropped: They don't have the same agenda I do.

They don't see the need to keep the White House, with all its associated Supreme Court nominations, Cabinet posts, Federal budget preparation responsibilities, diplomatic responsibilities, and other functions, out of the hands of wackjob puppets for selfish, mindlessly destructive Oligarchs. At least, that's not the most critical priority, to them.

They're focused, rather, on the short-term, myopic, desperately imporant battle to be CORRECT about their very specific policy agendas. And while those agendas actually do overlap greatly with my own, their individual, micro-level focus places so much more importance on those specific policy positions than on the broader goal of keeping the White House out of GOPpie control, they're willing to damage that broader goal in the pursuit of short-term victory.

Short-term victory for policy positions I generally agree with.

So, why does it disturb me so much?

Maybe it's because I've seen a good many electoral cycles during my life. And because I've got a keen interest in history and the evolution of social policy and human progress. And so I've seen, far too many times, the price paid by short-term victory for profound policy changes, as they're subjected to distortion and conflict and pushback and subversion from within. All this, while structural and institutional tools are quietly subsumed into the Oligarchic machine and painfully-achieved progress is rolled back using the unspectacular levers and wires embedded in the machine.

So I've come to a tentative working hypothesis about those who concentrate on slagging off "the other" candidates. They're either idealistic but in fundamental disagreement with me about methodology, or they're actively and knowingly working to damage my key goal of keeping the White House out of GOPpie hands from 2017-2021 or 2025.

And if you're someone who falls in the first category, may I respectfully ask you to perform a thought experiment?

Because if you are in that first category, you're my friend, you're someone I agree with on many things, and we have a common overarching goal to advance human evolution and social progress. So, please, consider this thought experiment:

You carry on slagging off any candidate that isn't yours. And, because you're such a vigorous and effective advocate, and you find and/or frame the information you're using as negatively and damagingly as possible, a lot of it *sticks* to those other, no-good, very bad, horrible not-your-candidates who are, let's face it, tools of Bad People and not in any way as good as your candidate. You damage them.

But-- you still do not manage to get your Highly Superior Candidate nominated.

In fact, one of those now-damaged candidates gets nominated, dragging the mud you and everyone else who's seen them for The Scum They Are has tied to them, into the ring with them, to face the GOP's best shot. A best shot that's so much lower and scummier than they are, it seems impossible that anyone could look at them without retching. But.... they have the Six-Headed Big Media Hydra behind them. And the Oligarch's unlimited spending purse. And the traditional GOPpie willingness to fight dirtier than anyone else.

What are the GOPpie operatives going to reach for, first?

Whadda you think?

Because I think that what the GOPpie operatives are gonna reach for first, is the damage already inflicted, during the primary, by other Democrats. "Hey, look! Even the libtards know what a vile tool this candidate is!"

So, here's the pitch: I'm not asking anyone to refrain from pointing out what they disagree with on any candidate. You think Candidate A's vote on this particular issue was terrible and reflects different priorities than you embrace? Don't be shy about that. It's well within the latitude of primary contention.

But... passing on sleazy rumors? Using "alleged" dirt dug up and distributed by GOPpie operatives? Personal attacks about who you assume anyone's in metaphorical policy debt to? Please, just think twice, or three times, before going there, okay?

Yes, it's fine to point out that Candidate B has a whole lotta campaign contributions from people you dislike or disagree with. But don't automatically assume that means that Candidate B is the willing shilling tool of scum, because if there's any truth at all about electoral politics in America, it's that NO ONE stays bought all the time and forever. It's ALL horse trading, no one is simon-pure and every elected official must make hard compromises on some policy positions to achieve larger agendas.

Please consider my agenda, too: Whichever candidate we send to the ring against the clown who's managed to push the others outta the car, let's try to ensure they arrive with a strong, viable reservoir of popular support as well as money from the Oligarchs who will be hedging their bets, as always. Because yes, we want whoever it is to be indebted to popular support as much as possible.

beseechingly,
Bright

16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The Penny Drops...»Reply #0