I Want to Vote Democratic, But...

[AuntiePinko]

Dear Auntie Pinko,

As a moderate who has been increasingly leaning liberal for the last couple years, I have a question about how I fit into the "big tent" of the Democratic Party.

My friends and I represent what we think is a pretty significant portion of the population, we are 21-30, male, educated, socially liberal but moderately conservative on the fiscal side. In a debate with my friends and I, we were discussing how we want to vote for the Democratic Party, but do not want to be associated with many of the people we see at college or in daily life.

Some examples of this can be found on the forum, knee-jerk reactions to any sort of political news, complete and utter bias against anyone who is not of the left. The hysterics of these sort of people are exactly why we left the Republican party, is there any place for rational skeptics who are critical of either side and recognize the strengths of both sides (at least in theory if not practice). In case it matters, a summary of my positions is such, pro-choice, agnostic, in favor of a limited welfare state, against the war from the start, and the list goes on.

Thanks for your time,
Jason
Buffalo, NY


Dear Jason,

Unfortunately, the whole world is simply teeming with people who, given the right provocation, will froth at the mouth and make irrational, dogmatic, hostile-sounding statements, especially about subjects like politics, religion, and sports. I number myself among them—push the correct buttons and I’ll sound pretty crazy too. There’s really only two ways to handle the problem.

One way is to form your own exclusive group based on a membership standard of strict moderation, skepticism, and polite modes of expression. Policing those standards might be a bit tough, but the membership would definitely be very small and you could enjoy a sense of being very exclusive and even elite. However, such a small group, unless endowed with really large amounts of money and/or social influence, isn’t likely to be very effective politically. I think it’s a given that any group founded on principles of polite skepticism and moderate expression would be invisible with regards to media coverage in today’s world. You might be able to develop some modest but strategically important influence in the long run, if you consistently advocated for your positions with an extraordinary level of intellectual and ethical integrity and very good communications skills.

The other possibility would be to simply accept the fact that the political arena attracts and provokes extraordinarily high levels of passion among its many dedicated players, that passion is rarely rational and frequently dogmatic and intolerant, and that if you want to participate in civic life, you have to develop the ability to ignore and/or dismiss it. You will find intemperate passion to a greater or lesser incidence at almost every place on the ideological spectrum, around all the current issues of the day, and in every venue where people express themselves about politics.

And we need that passion. We need our intemperate ideologues and our dogmatic demagogues. Without those swirling pressures, the big mass of moderates would never overcome inertia and we’d never be able to make the political changes necessary to adjust to fast-changing economic, geopolitical, ecological and social conditions. But that doesn’t make it a pleasant process.

It’s possible to participate in political life on your own terms. Examine the platforms and official policies and statements of the part(ies) that interest you, and their records of accomplishments. Study the positions and actions of the party’s elected officials, and the effects of those actions on the health of the American nation and its citizens. Then make a choice about who to support, and decline to participate in any strident, useless arguments that annoy you. State your positions quietly but with conviction, and keep an open mind when listening to those who are willing to do likewise. I assure you there are many in both parties, though they won’t necessarily raise their voices to be heard above the din. Be willing to change your mind and your position as new facts alter your understanding.

If you do participate in such a way, you’ll soon notice others like yourself. The more opportunities you take to become active in Party affairs, even if you have to spend time with the noisy, passionate ideologues, the more effectively you can influence the process. After all, if we leave politics to the ‘extremists,’ all we’ll have left is extreme politics. And that’s a nasty, self-perpetuating cycle that’s done much to increase the problems we are dealing with today. So please don’t give up on us, Jason, whichever route you choose to take, and thanks for asking Auntie Pinko!

[skids]

1. Or to be more blunt than AuntiPinko...

...this guy is a conflict-avoidant wimp. Like most of the sheepish population here.

Unfortunately other than forcing them all to live in NYC, and not the nice part, for a year, there's no quick fix for that syndrome. Hopefully he'll find a way to express his political will at the ballot box without feeling that voting for the D is "being associated" with all those "kneejerk" people, because his views are pretty much mildly-left populist, which is the kind of centrist I'd like to see voting.

[Kiouni]

2. I kind of agree with

Jason in the sense that i would like to one day vote for the best candidate, regardless of party. I want to vote for someone that will do something and i can support. The problem is that one side (repugs) uses fear mongering tactics to harden a guaranteed vote and essentially ensuring the exclusion of any progression. So until hell freezes over i will have to make a choice to side right or left.

[foxeyes2]

3. I agree with Jason as well

on the fact that there are some here on DU who are so rabid in their dislike for the conservatives that they come across as hate filled. They resort to name calling and personal attacks describing people as ugly or fat or whatever. It just gets to be too much sometimes. I came out of the far religious right and am now a tree hugging liberal but there are times that I get turned off by the rhetoric on this board.` Of course I will probably be labeled by someone who thinks I am a coward. If you do decide to insult me please do better than those on the right and makes sure you spell correctly.

[Kiouni]

9. i would never

insult someone for their beliefs and i agree with you. Before i joined DU i think i was much more of a left wing finatic and now because of all the "personal attacks" against the right i have started to become more of an independent in my views. welcome to DU!

[liberalmike27]

22. Jason Should Vote for Candidate He Agrees With

As far as the silly idea that we've become rabid, and passionate about what we believe in, well, look at the success the republicans have had by being passionate. We've managed, by being centrists and reasonable, to lost both the Senate, and the House, not to mention the presidency, though we could argue about whether we really lost that.

My favorite comment about this is the tug-of-war analogy. If we are engaged in a tug-of-war and simply try to hold the line, we'll be dragged into the mud. That is what has happened. Apparently Americans choose passionate politicians who appear to deeply believe what they are saying. This has been Republicans in the past couple of decades. Add to that, the entire political spectrum has been pulled to the right, then we see further results of the silly strategy of being reasonable, rather than fighting tooth and nail for what we believe in, and trying to keep our country from being dragged further into Fascist-land. I'd rather be blown up than end up in a country like Germany was before WWII, where we constantly live in fear from our own government as well as outside forces who seek retaliation for our actions in the world.

I can't be more proud of those on the leading edge of the left, as they are pulling with all their might to keep us out of the muck and mire of further movement to the right. It's sticky, and we're already thigh deep in the swamp. The deeper you get, the harder it is to retrieve yourself. Ever walked in a swamp? So vote for who you agree with on the issues you care most deeply about. Care about the underprivileged, or not, but I can tell you Republicans are not going to keep on trying to fight hard for the win, so we shouldn't either. If we pull hard enough to the left, perhaps we'll find a group of Greens to grab the rope, and join us again as part of the Democratic Party. Democrats have allowed themselves to be pulled so far to the right that the Greens have just decided to sit in the shade. Like it or not, the poor, working or not are represented by the Democrats. When we leave them, or deny them, do not be surprised if they don't vote, or don't vote democratic.

[rodeodance]

27. cheap shots from either side are real tiring and non productive. They

may give a momentary release but in the long run they just tend to use up energy!

[Demeter]

4. Jason Should Get Off His Ass and Get Politically Active

The Democratic Party is screaming for talent, brains and morals. He is needed, and he can get something worthwhile done. Don't even bother with the GOP--they have been Assimilated, and Resistance is Futile.

[ItNerd4life]

5. Thanks for cracking me up

Damn, I loved that. They have been assimilated and resistance is futile.

[comtec]

6. Fence sitting is no longer an option

And i'm a moderate!
I believe in a bit of everything. I like money, I think commerce and capitalism is good... to an extent!

People get passionate here because we are all so HOPPING MAD! at the current political system. At least during Clinton (you know unprecedented prosperity and relative peace around the world) the system was still reasonably honest. We voted and knew our votes were fairly counted, etc.

FOLLY IS IN THINKING ALL DECENTERS ARE LEFT WING WACKOS!!!!

I know some LWW... they are generally nice people. We can generally agree on most things. This wonderful country of ours is going to hell in a hand basket over profit and it doesn't need to happen!

I changed to Democrat in 1996 to make a point! I was independent before that. But I COULD NOT sit back and be independent any more. I grew up. I looked around and saw the CRAP that everyone, myself included, was going thru for the sake of profit. It was a great time but jobs were still cut throat. Now it's all out anarchy - to continue the analogy. No jobs are sacred, no one is so good they can not be replaced with someone younger, cheaper, or in another country, even if that means lower quality!

DEMOCRATS REPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF OUR INTERESTS!

The only people the GOP represents any more are the ultra, ULTRA rich. Thats it. They don't even represent the wing nuts they are always pandering to. Just the unethically rich.

That's my opinion, I could be wrong.

[VaYallaDawg]

7. Welcome to DU - you ain't wrong!!! n/t

[liberalmike27]

23. Yea

And that "left wing looney" thing is a fallacy that is promoted by the so-called-liberal-media. Ever see interviews on the corporate media of Mike Moore, Howard Zinn, or Noam Chomsky? How do they treat Nader? How is it this supposed liberal media seems to trash or not ever allow appearances of actual liberals?

Too often Capitalism is represented as one side or the other, a very fixed place. In truth, government ideas are an ideological spectrum, and we've been hovering near the authoritarian fascist extreme right wing edge. I've always said there is a sweet spot somewhere between Capitalism and Socialism. Call it limited Capitalism if you like. Unfortunately the advocates of rot-gut capitalism have taken hold, and as a result the ills of our current world show themselves, perpetual war, increasing crime in a time when crime was decreasing, and one of the largest prison populations in the world other than South Africa.

When I hear people say they are fiscal conservatives, I can't help but feel they are not really thinking, but repeating, as it is something I heard an awful lot during the Reagan years. What does that mean? Do you allow people to starve, or be unemployed and wander homeless? What exactly does that mean? People like to define themselves without admitting to what their beliefs actually do. They won't embrace the down side of their policies.

[galileo3000]

8. Auntie Pinko you are filled with deep loving kindness

Thank you for being you.

- galileo

[MrBenchley]

10. The difference between the extreme left and the extreme right

The far right knows America doesn 't want any part of what its peddling and tries to hide from sight...

The far left knows America doesn 't want any part of what its peddling and hates America for it--and thinks that the answer is to lecture America louder about how awful it is that everybody else is out of tocuh with them. That's why they're more of a cancer on the Democrats than the far right is to the Republicans.

[Bjorn Against]

11. So you prefer the far right to the left?

Yeah those far right Republicans just sit in the background and don't say anything obnoxious. My god Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are just so polite. They sure hide their outrageous beliefs.

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

It is just amazing how much more ridiculous your claims are every time you make a new post.

[comtec]

13. Not a completely invalid point

/rant on

The main problem with the far leftists that it has, generally, a reasonable amount of evidence it's right. (no pun intended)

The major problem with either extreme is we either get Hitler or Stalin. Politics is not a line it's a ring. Go far enough in either direction and you end up coming back around.

The main problem with the Far left view is that making money is a bad thing and nobody has a right to make more than anyone else. The Soviets tried this view and their medical system was notoriously horrid!

The far left needs to come in touch with reality and accept realistic compromises. Doctors ARE worth MORE than McDonald's workers because (if only) the DECADE! they spend in school/interning before they can even start being doctors.

Teachers, arguably, are worth as much or more! Teachers, sometimes, take just as long in school for a Masters, or doctorate in their field, spend time in some kind of research situation then teach! Is that time no more valuable than someone who saves lives, someone who SHAPES lives?

Our education system is atrocious. The one in the Netherlands is only better because it's all state paid until you are 23. Without educators there would be little or no high, or middle tech industries. Even many low-tech industries would fall apart without a educated work force.

The left (the moderate left) wants schools to be palaces with high paid teachers (I agree but also know that to be unrealistic in my lifetime) the right wants only the rich to have education for their kids and to hell with everyone else!

I was educated in the 80's/early 90's. It was a good education. I know I would be how I am now if it had not been for HS drama. I learned how to interact with people. That is not something you can learn from a book or test.

IN closing... the Dem's are all we have. Yes the far left may SEEM like a cancer, but really their ideals are far better for society than the far right's.
/rant off

[MrBenchley]

15. An intersting post...

The problem is that the far left's "ideals" are as phony as everything else about them. You'll notice it wasn't moderates or even "right wing" Joe Lieberman who produced an offensive blackface caricature.

The far left is like ithe incontinent--they get a warm feeling themselves, but the rest of the world is disgusted by them.

[Ken Burch]

16. OK, I accept that you have the right to disagree with what I believe in

But who are you to say that my beliefs are phony?

And what, exactly, did those of us who are progressives ever stand for that was that terrible, of that wrong?

We were right on civil rights(and you centrists wouldn't have done a damn thing to end Jim Crow if the left hadn't forced the issue from below)

We were right on Vietnam(again, you guys would have cheerfully renominated LBJ and sent the party down to a much bigger defeat in '68 than we had because you forced the party to nominate Humphrey and have him run as an all-out hawk)

We were right on Central America, on the insanity or Reagan's nuclear buildup, on the immorality of the cuts in social services in the '80s.

We were right to want unions to gain strength again and to keep pushing for repeal of Taft-Hartley.

We were right to oppose the corporate-backed and corporate-drafted "free trade" deals that force working people around the planet to compete to see who will work for the lowest wages.

We were and are right to support full equality for gays and lesbians. There IS no center ground between justice and injustice.

We are right today to lead the fight to stop this psychotic conflict in Iraq, the bloodsoaked disaster that an invasion of Iran would have to be, and the nightmare that U.S-backed overthrows of the democratic governments of Venezuela and Bolivia.

Clinton didn't need to repudiate ANY of that to win. The voters weren't demanding a Democrat who sounded more like the Republicans than different from them. They didn't want our party to surrender.

You can't seriously point to anything in the above list as something Democrats should have been ashamed of or that progressives weren't sincere in backing. No one would ever give insincere support to an unpopular position, and a lot of our positions weren't and AREN'T unpopular anyway.

[klyon]

21. I think you are wrong.

disgusted?
phony?
sorry if I offend you
your lack of respect is what is being discussed here
I believe just as strongly that my positions are good and right as anyone else, middle or right
who are you to call people phony
Do you think the left just fakes compassion like the right?

[liberalmike27]

24. Is

Is the liberal side even that far left. I'm reminded of a line Hugo Weaving said in V for Vendetta. "Is that what you think, or is that what they want you to think." None of us, myself not excluded, know just how much a lifetime of television, radio, and the dogma passed down by our parents, grandparents, and other relatives has on us. Messages are everywhere, increasingly in comedy shows, and other shows. Even the types of shows they put on make us think in certain ways. I can't count the number of "Law and Order" shows, or medical shows. When you see constant crime shows on television does it cause you to sympathize with the victims, and hate the criminals more? Do you come a bit closer to the "fry-them" position when you watch this constant parade of crime and the grief they cause? In these shows do they ever explore the lives of criminals that have led them to this dark place? They are often filled with issues. If you aren't looking for them, if you don't spot them and know they are coming then "bam" they hit you in the head and are absorbed and filed away under "P" for propaganda. Another line "V" laid on us was "people often use the truth to tell a lie, and lies to tell the truth. I think of Comedy Central as an example, but it happens on both sides. They have skits that are put-ons, or lies, but they often are filled with truths about just how ridiculous some of the points of the right-wingers are, as well as the occasional jab at the left.

As far as the money goes, we really need to do a better job of monitoring the money made at the bottom. In our society with globalization and immigration, increasingly all we have to replace them service jobs that pay minimum wage. While there is a myth that all minimum wage workers are just high school kids, nothing could be further from the truth. About 61% of minimum wage workers are a parent, or significan wage-earner for a household. If you consider all those in the range of the suggested increase (5.15-7.15) then that percentage is much higher.

Certainly I agree with you that doctors should make more. But I noticed that people seem to see graduation from high school as some sort of starting point in training. If you have a normal degree you have sixteen years of school, and a high school diploma is 12 years. So you've got 33% more training, is your salary going to be only 33% more than minimum wage? So minimum wagers have a bit more training than people often give them credit for.

[MrBenchley]

14. There ain't a dime's worth of difference

except that the far left are even dumber than the far right.

[Dutch]

19. As usual, your posts act as a reminder that "moderates"

can be just as capable of knee-jerk hysterics as radicals on either side.

[silvermachine]

28. Wow...

<<<The far right knows America doesn 't want any part of what its peddling and tries to hide from sight...>>>

Oh yeah, they're a real shy, retiring bunch.

You really need to put me in touch with your dealer.

[droidamus2]

12. Unfortunate

Jason, unfortunately for those who are moderates like you that are uncomfortable with the extremes of both parties there is not a true moderate party in the US. Maybe it wouldn't be bad to have a viable third party that represented the middle but that is not the case at this time. Also unfortunately for you it happens that the activists in each party do tend to be strong believers in their convictions and not shy about letting people know. These people are the ones who have the drive to get things done and go out and convince people that the Democrats ideas and plans for the future are better for them than the neo-con agenda. In this 2 party system you are stuck with either staying independent, an admirable position in itself, or deciding which party more closely represents your point of view realizing that the party will not and should not placate you and by so doing lose the conviction of their ideas. The progressives and the Democratic party are playing the Republicans game when they move to the center to get a few more votes (yes I know it is a lot of votes). This is only a short term fix and makes us look wishy-washy about our ideals. What we have to do is convince the people in the middle that our ideas are offering them the best future and that we truly believe in those ideas. People want an alternative to the right wing wackos not a watered down version of the same. You are more than welcome in the Democratic party and among the more progressive elements but don't think that we will ever moderate our views just to make you feel comfortable. Convince us your way is better and we may change but we will not move from our positions just to appease the more conservative elements of the movement. Sorry if this sounds harsh to you and I hope you do truly see the advantages of a progressive future as opposed to a neo-con return to the past. (editted for errors)

[Baselinereality]

17. The Irony Of Droidamus2

"You are more than welcome in the Democratic party and among the more progressive elements but don't think that we will ever moderate our views just to make you feel comfortable."

Now...

I consider myself to be progressive and leftist, and I don't even like the word "leftist." Makes me think of Stalin and Castro and such and boy do I hate those totalitarian puckers. Well, actually, I don't really hate Castro. I hate that Castrol EX, though. Crap.

Vehement "democrats" scare me just as much, embarrass me just as much, as passionate Republicans do.

If you think that it's justified to hate your political enemy just because they do, if you think you have the right to spurn people from your tent just because their viewpoint doesn't completely line up with yours, you're wrong.

Moderate your views. What exactly ARE your view, Droidamus2? What views do you not want to moderate for people? Do you even have any idea how f*cking stupid you sound as you make your demands? You're so militant. Over your views. Which are? While you're excluding people.

Groan.

I am biting my lower lip as I drink my beer and I hope you understand the point that I am trying to make.

[liberalmike27]

25. veddy interesting

Vehement "

vehement democrats scare me just as much, embarrass me just as much, as passionate Republicans

Hmmmm....Republicans are passionate and Democrats are Vehement. Hmmmm....is that like Democrats "play" politics and republicans are serious?

Bias noted.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. It's clear Jason should be voting Democratic

with this position:

socially liberal but moderately conservative on the fiscal side.
...
In case it matters, a summary of my positions is such, pro-choice, agnostic, in favor of a limited welfare state, against the war from the start, and the list goes on.

I'd say that puts him slightly more progressive than the average Democratic politician - especially the good judgement to be against the war from the start. Howard Dean sounds like a pretty good representative for him. If you line up with the chairman of the party, you know the party is a good home for you. That the party is big enough to hold a few who tend towards 'hysterics' shouldn't be a problem. The main message of the Democrats fits well with what Jason wants.

[Bridget Burke]

26. Correct. Are today's Republicans "moderately conservative....

on the fiscal side"? Hardly. They're throwing away our tax money like a newly rich guitar player who just discovered cocaine.

All his other beliefs are quite Democratic.

[aein]

20. I think the problems lies less with right v. left; than it does with....

realist v. idealogue

Some people are not critical thinkers, and hold their beliefs not based on reason, but from a sense of tradition. Some people won't change their mind, no matter how rational the argument. Actually, most people.

Moreover, I think this problem also applies to many "centrists." Sometimes the right answer comes from the "far wing."

[yurbud]

29. Sometimes those on the left on campus emphasize the wrong things

Especially before the Bush era.

I knew a lot of people in sociology at one school and they seemed to be in a kind of perpetual grievance olympics, trying to decide which things should offend them and who had the greatest grievances.

On essentially ALL the historical grievances I agreed with them, but when they get their dander up about someone saying "girl" instead of "woman" or more egregiously, say you could never understand something unless you were a member of the group that did it or practiced it, I felt like I was watching a minstrel show written by Rush Limbaugh.

Similarly, I think abortion should be legal, but when it is framed as a right instead of a necessary evil, it plays into the stereotype of the right.

However, some of the concerns of the right are hard to get around because they have nothing to do with facts and analysis but visceral fear and hatred. This is especially true on the issue of immigration. There's a legitimate concern about how abundant cheap labor affects wages, but the right's focus on their use of welfare (which probably equals one no bid, no work contract Bush gives his friends), and their supposed failure to assimilate and learn English is clearly knee jerk racism, as is their newly prominent and stoked hatred of Muslims, or their fear that failing to lynch gays will lead to a spread of homosexuality like the plague. Maybe for each of these groups, we need the equivalent of the election of a Polish pope, which effectively cut 99% of Polish jokes. But I doubt that would work. The same people who would cheer a gay muslim Mexican if he had a good jump shot and take the team to the finals might lynch his less talented brother if they bumped into him in a bar.

[yurbud]

30. Tell them to vote way rich and elderly do: for personal financial gain

Do you think most rich people care if abortion is legal or illegal? If it's illegal, they can simply fly their daughter, girlfriend, or maid they raped to another state or even country.

They vote for the people who will put money in their pockets through contracts, deregulation, privatization, trade deals, and weakening labor.

Old people vote so consistently on their financial interests that even the republicans give up the pretense of ideology at election time and get in a bidding war with the Democrats over who will give them more.

The rednecks should do the same. Will the tax cut Bush gave you cover the cost of sending your kid to daycare longer because the school year is shorter, or sending your kid to private school because the public one has become to dangerous and the teachers are spread to thin?

Which politician is going to make it easier for your kids to go to college? Do you think you can pay for that out of pocket or save enough ahead of time? How long will it take your kid to graduate if they have to work a full time job all the way through school? What will their life be like if they are saddled with student debt as high as what a house cost only a few years ago when they graduate?

Which politician wants to make it easier for your boss to screw you out of overtime and send your job overseas? (Dems need to get dogmatic on this trade shit).

If you talk about each of those issues, you can make a dent. The only problem is, the GOP has their big noise machine working day and night to pull the dents out.