Moderation and compromise: ineffective when dealing with extremists

[Q]

- It's quite disturbing to see a new generation of Democrats who seem to believe they need to compromise on everything in order to 'win'. Yet...they've compromised for over a decade and they're not only in the minority...they've lost complete control of our government and its institutions. Democrats have always had a voice in government...until the compromisers took control of the party.

- Republicans now control the White house, senate and congress, Supreme Court, state governors, legislatures and many judgeships. They control the military, CIA and FBI. And it's certainly not a conspiracy theory to suggest they control a majority of the media, corporations and think tanks. So how then has 'moderation' been successful for the Democratic party? The extremists who now control our government love the politics of moderation and 'bipartisanship' because they're so easy to manipulate and dismiss as weakness.

- What's left to compromise? Abortion? The RWingers have already made a crime of it. The environment? They've already weakened or eliminated every environmental protection and regulation. The economy? Republicans are spending us into oblivion. War? Democrats voted with Republicans to give Bush* a blank check and turned away from their Constitutional responsibilities. Health care? RWingers took care of that issue long ago by labeling it as 'socialism'. Civil rights? Democrats agreed with Republicans that civil rights violations during the 2000 election was not an issue. War on drugs? Both parties agree. Separation of church and state? Our government now directly funds the church.

- The fact is that the 'centrists' have compromised our party to the point of irrelevance. The traditional Democratic voter no longer recognizes the 'party of the people' and finds it difficult to vote for those who compromise with the extremists on the right. A question that needs to be asked: what happens to the 'working class' and the poor when the Democratic party ignores their base and panders to the middle and the phantom 'swing voter'? Who is left to champion for the rights of the 'have-nots' and those struggling to survive with low-paying jobs and rising cost of living? The Democratic party must return to their grass roots to seek support or risk becoming a permanent minority.

- Moderation is the friend of despots and fascists. Moderation and compromise works ONLY when the balance of power is spread among the coequal branches of government. But that's not the reality we're faced with right now. You can't compromise with those who ignore the Constitution and make their own rules.

- You might as well call it appeasement. "After a time silence becomes betrayal".

[mhr]

1. Compromise No More - Death To The DLC!

'nuff said

[Q]

3. What will the 'moderates' say...

...if we lose the next election? They can't say it's the fault of the 'liberals' because we haven't had a say in the party for a very long time.

- I believe we're going to see many go to third parties if the Dems lose again in 2004.

[kayell]

9. This will be my last election to vote Dem barring major changes

I'm tired of having every issue I care about compromised away as divisive and likely to turn off the imaginary support of some theoretical swing voter.

I'm going to hold my nose and vote for the dem this time, because the alternative is so appalling. But that's it.

Dems - If you want my vote (the one you've always had in the past), you better convince me you deserve it.

[Bandit]

31. My sentiments also

:shrug: It is time for the Democrats to shit or get off the pot.

[BillZBubb]

2. In the long run moderation is wise

Unfortunately, as Keynes noted, in the long run we'll all be dead.

We cannot hope to appease the right wing monster. It's hunger for power and control knows no end.

The battle lines are drawn, now it's the time for patriots to decide which side to fight on.

[Q]

4. The GOPers are fighters...

...and the Dem party still seems to believe in the fantasy of a winning by bringing a 'knife to a gunfight'.

- And the minority leader Daschle? He has only nice things to say about Bush* and his illegal war. Where are the fighting Dems? The answer is that anyone who dares speak ill of Bush* are quickly put down and shunned by the 'New' Democrats.

[BeFree]

12. Not to disagree with you <grin>

But JK seems to be slamming the * agenda and getting the majority of Dem votes --- all at the same time! Now, not knowing what you mean by 'New' Democrats, I'd have to venture that you mean they are the Nader voters?

The thing about working with extremists: Extremists, by their very nature, are out on a limb. One needs only to find the weak spot on that limb. Ya can't do that if ya don't sit beside them for a bit. It may appear that you are working with them, but in reality, all you are doing is getting close enough to find their weakness.

[Loonman]

5. What it boils down to

Do you want to beat Bush or not?

[Q]

11. Are you suggesting...

...that only 'moderation' can beat Bush*? Or am I reading something into your post that isn't there?

[LeahMira]

14. Since you put it that way...

What it boils down to ...
Do you want to beat Bush or not?

That's not the issue that concerns me.
That's not a choice that has any relevance to me.

Of course I would like to see someone else in the White House.

My choice is whether or not I will stand by what I absolutely believe is right, no matter what the consequences.

At this point, that means that I need to decide whether or not to vote for the candidate who best represents my views, even if in so doing my vote contributes to another four more years of the Bush Regime.

I truly do wish that the Democratic party candidate were the one who best represents my views. Nonetheless, I have no intention of compromising the things I believe in.

[worldgonekrazy]

21. Do you want to put a nicer face on much of the same policy?

Because that seems to be what Dems are going for.

I say amen, Q. When you fight the extreme right by adopting the Centrist position the end result is a center-right government.

[maggrwaggr]

23. you can only beat bullies by standing up to them

and BUsh is a bully.

Enough said

[mopaul]

6. exactly, you can't reason with madmen

no point even trying. the time for capitualation and compromise is over. it's time to fight like they fight. play by their rules.

there will always be some democrats who say, "let's not sink to their level, and become exactly like them". nonsense. they created the rules, now let's play by them.

they are goliath, we are david....and we all know how that turned out.

[tom_paine]

7. Here's one Moderate who agrees with you, Q

No more "colmes"-style milquetoastery!

Unfortunately, that is exactly what I see the Democratic frontrunner fallign back to, like an Abused Wife who comes back to the Abusive Husband because it's a comfortable, known rut.

[Q]

18. I'm not sure you're the type of 'moderate'...

...I'm talking about. The DLCers and other 'conservative' Democrats come to mind. It's not their moderate positions that offends...it's their unwillingness to defend the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

- The whole world knows that the Bushies LIED to rush this nation to war in Iraq. They lied...and what was the response from the Democratic 'leadership'? They announced they wouldn't pursue or investigate. It was good enough for them that Saddam was 'no longer a threat'.

- The RWingers think we're too weak to resist their bully tactics. Perhaps they're right?

[tom_paine]

19. We'll find out

History says the answr is likely "no".

But hwile there's life there'd hope, as they say.

Yes, I can see you're not referring to the Radicalized Moderate or even the "Equal Distrust of Exterem Left and Right both" Moderate but rather the Cautious Milquetoast Moderate.

[indepat]

8. The issue is simply the life or death of this Republic, IMHO. Those who

would save this Republic must be as nasty as the other guy, else all will be lost, must be willing to turn every weapon in their arsenal against them with a consuming vengeance and in the end, take no prisoners.

[Q]

10. Yes...we've been forced into a position...

...where we must fight to simply survive.

- We didn't start this war...but we can't afford to lose it.

[indepat]

36. There is no second place, there is no loyal opposition in a police state

[cosmicdot]

13. do you see any parallels between now, and early 20th century trends?

from 1900 - 1916 - 1932?

I see similarities in a changing economy ... back then was rural/agricultural shifting to urban/industrial manufacturing, and the strife between that of the working class vs. the emerging monopolies ... and, believe that this transformation is reflected in the elections ... a strong 3rd Party, the Bull Moose Party, emerged under the direction of a politician with a progressive message ...

if so, who is TR, who is Taft, who is Wilson?

does 'technology' shorten the transformation period from a urban/industrial manufacturing society to one characterized by the buying and selling of data/services, joblessness, downsized and constantly changing, low wage/big gap between haves and how the other half live ... type economy?

IOW, we don't have to wait until "1933" (2033) to see the FDR-type leader we need to get our house in order for the 21st century ... if I should live so long, I'd be over 80 ...

a far cry from the 18 year old in 1968, who had political awareness heightened by an 'ask not' challenge and appreciating that the torch was being passed from one generation to another, with the promise that we were moving forward ... making progress ... on a new frontier ... something exciting about progress vs. obstructionism, etc., ... a young person who studied about and someone who witnessed the implementation of safety nets in our system because we, as a society, cared about the common good of all our people ... an idealistic 18 year old seeing civics and being a civil servant as they should be and beginning to see violations of that trust in the system ... an 18 year old who had seen progress in civil rights with an 'you haven't seen anything yet' call to 'see things' as they are, and ask 'why not' ... and, then, came fallen leaders ... Camelot destroyed ... torches not passed ... yet, still, after all these years ... hanging on to words of encouragement, such as, Hope is more than a town in Arkansas ... to ask and not tell ... and waiting for the next New Deal ... holding on to the promise of ripples of hope ... still, waiting for the tide to change ... toward progress, and away from the negative, cynical and antagonistic path which, from what I'm seeing, is destroying us.


thank you Q for inspiring us to think

[Cleita]

15. I have noticed that many who call themselves moderate

Democrats have the same politics as my parents who were moderate Republicans. Center has moved to the right. I don't know why the DLC exists. Maybe it was an attempt to appeal to conservatives who still had some decency and humanitarianism left in them, or if it was a calculated move to infiltrate the liberal party with Trojan horses but these Democrats are not Democrats IMHO.

I personally am registering Green after the November election. It stands for what I believe we should be doing as a country. I think with some new pragmatic leadership, who aren't inclined to shoot themselves in the foot, it will be the new party that will replace the DINO party in the future and that can stand up to the facists in the Republican Party permanently.

No person who is a woman, a homosexual, of an ethnic or racial minority should even think of being Republican and when my party starts looking like Republicans, I am outta there.

[BradCKY]

16. There are rifts in both parties to an extent

But this "you have to be a far left democrat or your really a republican" attitude doesn't help the party, we need to UNITE to oust Bush.

[Q]

17. You can't 'oust' Bush* by enabling him...

...and his fascist policies.

- The Republican party is united against us. The Democratic party has split into factions...some actually supporting Bush* and others opposing him.

- Nixon was threatened with and Clinton WAS impeached for far less than the crimes committed by the Bush* regime. And they've committed these crimes and insults to our Constitution in BROAD DAYLIGHT...as the Democrats whimper and cooperate.

- How can Democratic voters respect and support those who won't fight for their rights?

- Does the DLC actually believe that the US can 'spread' Democracy by gunpoint?

[JasonBerry]

25. Well

Brad, Welcome to DU. Get ready for nothing but flames for daring to advocate anything but far-left politics. Here at DU, a Kerry supporter is a sell-out! Yes, the same Kerry who has the top liberal voting record in the Senate! Being a liberal isn't enough for many here. Again, welcome!

[Q]

34. Please define 'far-left politics'...

- You and a few others keep throwing this term around as if it's a sin. How about giving us a definition of what you mean by far left and far left politics.

[tom_paine]

20. Many Moderates, Cleita, but not ALL Moderates

No one is more disconcerted than I to see the Democratic Party to might right, and the Imperial Bushevik Party just a tad left of Albert Speer...just a tad.

[Brewman_Jax]

22. The Marquis of Queensbury rules have been thrown out

The RW has been fighting bare-knuckled and dirty for the past 20+ years. The center has been pulled to the right.

I agree with Q. I'm not interested in trying to convert the political brain dead zombies. They helped create the problem that now has to be solved. If the democrats don't want to fight like hell to stem the tide, then, what's the use? :shrug: The RW will continue to gain until they have a unbeatable majority in the branches of government, kinda like they're trying for right now.

[Q]

24. Yet...we see few threads...

...about ways to DEFEAT the RWing extremists. Lots of threads on what the RWingers are SAYING about us...but little or nothing about strategy or counter-arguments.

- We can't even discuss 9-11 or the Iraq invasion without the moderates complaining that 'conspiracy theories' are hurting our image with the Republicans and 'swing' voters. Have we fallen to the point where we're afraid to speak out because it might give our opponents ammunition to use against us?

[tom_paine]

26. Yes. n/t

[BradCKY]

27. One thing is for sure.

When a moderate speaks out, most of the board immediately lashes out. Whereas when someone farther to the left speaks out on an issue moderates disagree with, you may see some moderate voices, but they are easily outnumbered.

I don't think moderates are infringing on free speech of this forum at all, this forum is for all democrats, and by sometimes debating each other, we get a better sense of all in the democratic party.

[JasonBerry]

28. I agree, Brad --- A word about the importance of diversity here

Brad, Make no mistake, the moderates here at DU are few and far between. At least the active posters here are. I hear from others by PM and wonder why they don't speak up!

You hit the nail on the head though about the discrepancy as to how moderates are treated on DU. When a moderate speaks out on something that is "moderate" it is followed by an avalanche of posts from those on the far-left. A real lefty posts and is followed by many posts praising the thread. A moderate brings up a point and they are made to feel very unwelcome.

It should be remembered that the party without moderates like us would be a party that would not be national, would be regional in a way that would not look good for Democrats in future elections. The Democratic Party has always welcomed everyone in a big-tent fashion. In most Democratic circles, that is still true. At DU, it is tolerated at best. Reviled and spat upon more often than not.

With that said, I still love DU. There are a wide range of posters that make this a great place. I have met some of the posters with whom I disagree a lot. It's funny, but after we share a beer, the differences aren't so important as are the things in which we agree. No question that some of my best of friends on DU are definitely from the far-left in the party. And - that's okay? I certainly do not think that everyone should think like I do -- and to be fair -- I think most on the left feel the same. It's a community in the true sense of the word. All kinds. I wouldn't have it any other way.
Jason

[BradCKY]

29. Good point

We all share a common goal, Bush out of office.

I did get a little frustrated over the past 3 months especially when I saw one poster who supported Saddam Hussein because "while he was brutal if you got in his way, however education went up 70&", or some of the Castro support. However I know thats not probably not nearly majority position on this board.

That's really is why I finally decided to speak my position, but I guarantee I have much more in common with a democrat any day than a republican.

[Q]

33. Seems to be a lot of the 'persecution complex'...

...going around on DU. But remember...'moderates' are treated as they treat others. I don't know how many times I've seen moderates post about the 'looney leftist fringe' or worse. When you come to a 'progressive' board with a chip on your shoulder...well...you know the rest.

- You're right...we've always welcomed DEMOCRATS or anyone else who wants to work for the advancement of the party and its ideals. It's odd that you would expect Dems to 'welcome' Republican-lites who want to transform the party into something resembling the opposition.

- I'm not sure what you mean by 'far-left'. The only people who use this term are RWingers, NeoDems and so-called centrists. But what does it mean to be far left? Support for abortion/choice? Civil rights? Fair elections? Government accountability?

[BradCKY]

35. My problems with the far left

Are NOT on the social side because I am socially liberal, I am against the death penalty and pro-choice. I am just a bit more fiscally conservative on issues like taxes (people who want to tax the rich 75%, that IMO is just as horrible as Bush NOT equally cutting the middle class and poor's taxes)

So I believe in the current progressive system you pay more as you earn more, as long as that isn't over 50%, and if the rich people get a huge tax cut, then the middle class and poor should get and equal percentage or else its not fair to me. Would that cost too much? Maybe not if you get rid of some of the ridiculous spending going on in Washington since Bush took office, and squandered Clinton's surplus.

Oh BTW I use the term far left because I'm not sure what else to call it, progressive maybe? you tell me?

[Q]

37. Only certain posters use the term 'far-left'...

...and they often use it in a knee-jerk manner. Attaching 'far' to left or right implies extremism. For instance...the neocons and religious fanatics are part of the 'far-right'. Yet you've suggested that many on DU are of the 'far-left'...implying that they'e just as extreme or out of touch as the far-right.

- Labeling anyone to the left of them as extreme only shows how far to the right many Democrats have gone in their pursuit to win by becoming like the opposition and adopting many of their policies.

[Hippo_Tron]

30. I actually like the Supreme Court the way it is now...

Well there's that BIG exception of appointing chimpy as president. Other than that I have been pretty satisfied with their decissions in the past few years.

[myopic4141]

32. There is compromise and there is ceding to the will of others.

The Dems have done more of the latter than the former.

[onecitizen]

38. Hallelujah!!

Show me the backbone! Before the Primary got going I was ready to bail. But Dean brought the change I needed. He gave me hope. Even if he wasn't right about everything(I think he WAS though). He had the spark we needed as a party to get us enthused again. Our guys started acting like they weren't scared anymore. It made me feel good and proud of them again. But already since Dean's departure, they're going back to their old "I'm too scared to say what I think" routine. I watch them on TV and I'm stunned again at how they will NOT just answer a question by a strong and decisive yes or no. It's a long winded explanation about why they cannot just say yes or no. What I want is a man(or woman) who says what he means and means what he says. And if he changes his mind on a subject, he's not afraid to say "I changed my mind and this is why". Just SAY it! It's not a sin to re-think something and reach different conclusion if the information you had has changed. But yeah, moderation has gotten us nowhere. Absolutely nowhere.

We don't really support anyone anymore cause we're too scared to come right out and say, "hell yes I support them"! "we've always supported this group and we'll continue to support them and if you don't like it then maybe you should go somewhere else". But nooooooo. We'll risk losing this group or that group cause we're afraid the other side will say something bad about us. Hey guess what? They're already saying something bad about us. Do we have to eat our own along the way to irrelevance?

We have neglected our African-American brothers and sisters for years now. I would not blame them if they went elsewhere. We would deserve it. And what about working families? How have we supported them recently? Have we done ANYTHING that would help them? Tax relief? Tax sheltered savings accounts maybe? Or maybe even a savings account. Forget the tax shelter. Most of us can't even afford a plain ol' piggy bank these days. What about helping them get their children to college. A College education for the middle class is becoming more elusive everyday. Like it was in 40's and 50's. Maybe an even more elusive. What about single Mom's and Dad's? Have we helped with after school programs so they won't have to worry about their little ones after school? And Health care is almost non existent for single parents with a minimum wage job. They simply cannot afford it. What about disabled persons? Do we even mention them these days?

We used to be the party of these people with these issues. But not lately. Who DO we want to fight for? If these segments of society are not worth us fighting for then who is? And we cannot compromise, we just can't.

[BradCKY]

39. Dean spoke his mind

But in reality he was a fiscally conservative governor of Vermont who found a way to provide health care AND keep the budget from going into deficit.

For that he deserves my respect I love how he spoke his mind but ultimately he went WAY too far and Bush would have had too much ammo against him.