Sorry, but I've gotta challenge this "Boiling Point" talk

[Armstead]

While I share concerns raised in the "Boiling Point" thread, I must take issue with the underlying implications and conclusions and overheated rhetoric and dark fantasies. It's advocating a direction our side should not go for many reasons.

I am not saying we should be Pollyanna, or bottle up our frustration and anger or not vigorously challenge what has been happening. I believe we have gotten into this mess by an excess of "moderation" on our side of the spectrum. We have to make clear the we are "mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore." We have to vigorously criticize and protest and work on real solutions as an alternative to the ststus quo.

However, I reject the tone and implications of the Boiling Point post. IMO, the end result of that way of thinking and rhetoric is dangerous and counterproductive and morally wrong. It's also a Dead End in terms of paving the way for any meaningful social, economic and political change for the better.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, it's the kind of hateful Black/White thinking that has destroyed societies throughout history. And which continue to destroy societies today, who allow themselves to get locked into pertetual civil war and hatred and ultimately violence.

It also marginalizes the left side of the spectrum, including moderate liberals as well as positive activist progressives of the left. Extremism is the same Dead End path that undermined the goals of the Left -- and ultimately set back social and political progress -- in the 1970's. We're still paying the price for the excessive hatred of the violent extremist fringes who outshouted the positive message of real activists and advocates for social and economic justice in the public mind.

In more contemporary terms, it's the equivalent of that small group of black-clad disruptors who totally discredit the message of the much larger mass of peaceful protestors at gatherings to protest the war and globalization.

It also overlooks a key element of history. "They" are nothing new. Similar ideological struggles and class conflicts have always been one of the fundamental drivers of US history. But since the Civil War, the genius of our nation has been that -- for the most part -- these internal struggles have been channeled through the system. Although there have been times when conflicts temporarily boiled over, ultimately, it was DEMOCRACY that prevailed and restored the balance and either kicked the bastids out or kept them in line.

Democracy, by its very nature, is a constant state of flux and ongoing state of struggle. It never reaches a static point of equilibrium. It's always marked by ups and downs, ins and outs, and steps forward and backward and lurches to the left or right.....The only time it can ever reach a point of equilibrim FOR ANY SIDE, it ceases being a democracy. It becomes fascism and totalitarianism.

The implications of the "Boiling Point" way of thinking also misses a key point. THE TIDE IS TURNING IN OUR FAVOR. More and more people are waking up. Even the entrenched negative powers-that-be are weakening.

But the only way we will allow that positive progress to continue is to channel whatever energy we have in positive ways that the majority can relate to and support. That doesn't mean we have to be namby-pamby. But we should NOT become like those we oppose. We should look to our own better angels rather than succumb to our own dark side or irresponsible fantasies.

Finally, this should not be allowed to fester into yet anotehr wedge on our side or on DU. I even hate writing this. But looking at the degree of support such extremism received, it is necessary to state a different view.

Things are bed, but we have to maintain a bigger perspective, and also recognize that while the wheels grind slowly, they do move us forward without our having to resort to thoughts of that degree of extremism and hate.

[blm]

1. Well said, Armstead.

The thoughtful protestors of the 60s and 70s were burdened for years by the spectre of the extremists, half of who were RW operatives working to urge violence to discredit the left in its entirety.

[pitohui]

5. the thoughtful protesters of the 90s and the 00s

are being completely ignored because there is no one to make them look reasonable, which they are, by contrast w. what real extremism looks like

if no one is willing to fight for a cause, then the logical assumption is that the cause is prob. not worth fighting for

i'm not willing to fight either but i'm not going to sit on my comfortable rear end and pretend that this is a moral position

[Armstead]

6. No one is advocating sitting on the rear end

But Rosa Parks made a big differnce by sitting on her rear end on a bus where she wasn't supposed to sit. Ultimately, in the long rin she did far more for real civil rights and progress for African Americans than the subsequent militants who posed with rifles.

I do agree with you about the need for spokespeople. There are plenty of people who are as progressive and passionate and uncompromising as anyone, and who are also articulate and have an "aura" that the mainstream could relate to. The problem is getting more visibility.

[pitohui]

7. how far would rosa parks have gotten...

...if there had been no malcolm x, no black panthers, no soul on ice, no george jackson, no watts riots, no detroit burning?

she and king would have been the extremist and the kooks, and as compromise always involves a meeting in the middle, she would not have achieved what she achieved

hell there were people who thought jfk was too damn extreme!

i don't wish to join the extremists but i don't think we should dishonor them either

without them our peaceful protest is labeled the extreme and we never advance

truth is, theirs is quite a thankless role in life

[Armstead]

11. No easy answer to that

Ad with much of history, the 15 years when Civil Rights was a dominant issue tends to get telescoped and oversimplified. In fact it was a very complicated process with many internal paradoxes and contradictions.

I won't deny that the more extreme elements of that movement may have had a constructive role. But ultimately, they made it easier for the otehr side to capitalize on the backlash, and grow it into a larger national resentment that intensified the backlash.

[xxqqqzme]

64. when Rosa Parks stayed seated

there was NO Malcolm X, no black panthers, no Soul on Ice, no George Jackson, no Watts riots, no Detroit burning - all that happened thru-out the 60s not in 1955.

[blm]

9. What makes it harder lately is the GOPcontrol of media, BUT, we also now

have had Schiavo, Katrina, Fitzgerald as UNSPINNABLE stories that opened eyes to their deceptions.

All we needed was for some truth to break through and a media finally cowed by unspinnable events.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Apology accepted.

[Armstead]

3. Touche

[Bluerthanblue]

4. I'm not sorry-

you speak truth and wisdom - clearly-

thank you.

[tx_dem41]

8. You aren't alone, Armstead.

Thanks for verbalizing my thoughts.

[OKNancy]

10. I also agree with you.

It seems the same group of posters try to cool things down, but often we are in the minority.

Personally, I think a lot of that is "internet" talk. It would never be verbalized in the real world.

Additionally, I think there is a lot of over-emotionalism because some people just think.."oh this is the worst time ever" It's not.
It's not even the worst time in my life span. I could list the various horrors of 1963 to 1974 and compare Vietnam and Nixon to Bush, but thinking people know this. Hell, we had students murdered at Kent State. Nothing like that is going on now. Given a choice to live then or now... I'd pick now. At least we can all grouse about stuff on the internet.

Hard-nosed politics, good candidates, hard work and clear minds will turn things around in my opinion, not rants on political message boards. ( I do my share of ranting, but I know what it's worth in the scheme of things)

[pitohui]

48. wow we lost a major usa city in the 60s & several small towns also?

would you mind refreshing my memory because you know i was alive in that era too and i was not aware that a major usa city and many smaller towns had been destroyed in the era 1963-1974

yes, it IS worse now, i'm glad you have a nice roof over yr head tonight, people from moss point, mississippi to orange, texas DON'T

i believe you would have to go back to civil war days to find a time when such a large number of communities were utterly destroyed

we had 4 students killed at kent state, that is sad but you know what, we are still counting the bodies just from orleans parish & st. bernard parish alone

if people are angry, here is one of the reasons -- the nation don't care, the nation trivializes, the nation has already forgotten!

we ought to be crying out the names of the dead towns from cameron to venice to meraux from the mountaintops & calling for justice

sheesh, 4 dead at kent state, like that is even on the same map

[Greyhound]

52. I'm curious how you think "Hard-nosed politics, good candidates, hard work

and clear minds will turn things around..."? As I've posted elsewhere, the laws have been passed, the rights abrogated. How can this be practically fixed? :shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. At what point is extremism justified?

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
- Barry Goldwater

I am sensitive to the impact of rhetoric. You speak truth when you observe what happened to numerous societies which went down a divisive path.

Here's the deal. Would extremism be a justifiable response to an election in which a presidential candidate arranged to delay release of hostages to deny the incumbent a success?

Would extremism be a justifiable response to revelations that the hostage-takers were provided weapons by that newly elected president and the proceeds used to fund a secret, illicit and illegal war against a democratic government?

Would extremism be a justifable response when the corporate powers (including the media) turn a personal failing into an impeachment trial?

Would extremism be a justifiable response to five sequential fraudulent black box elections?

Would extremism be a justifiable response to being deceived into a war?

Would extremism be a justifiable response to wiretaps, gulags and torture?

The longer we, through inaction, let this go on, the more painful it is to correct it. The opposition is emboldened by our... moderation.

[Armstead]

13. There's a large spectrum between opposition and extremism

As I noted in my original post, we have often been undone by our own excess of moderation.

But rather than being a justification for what I would call "extremism" it should be a wake up call for stauncher opposition and action within the system. It doesn't require a civil war to kick it up a notch politically, or in terms of positive progressive activism.

Barry Goldwater was not calling for a revolution with his quote. He was referring to taking a strong political stand to challenge what he perceived as threats to liberty.

(I should acknowledge that Goldwater's form of extremism included nuclear brinksmanship, so it did have unfortunate potential impacts. Nevertheless, he was talking about raising and defending strong positions within the political system -- not calling for civil war.)

[Armstead]

14. P.S. Goldwater's comments also sealed his political doom

Goldwater's quote also scared many people, marginalized him as a presidential candidate and helped to make LBJ seem more acceptable.

It also added an additional burden to the ultra-conservative movement, because they had to work harder to make their case. Sure,m they did ultimately overcome it, but it would probably have been a lot easier for them if he hadn't painted them into that corner.

[lumberjack_jeff]

26. They didn't succeed by "overcoming" it

They succeeded by embracing it, and by taking it to the next level.

We failed by pretending that it wasn't really happening.

[Armstead]

54. I beg to differ

You have to remember the tone of the times.

Extremism on both sides increased in the second half of the 60's.

The right wing positioned themselves as the voice of the "silent majority," not by carrying on Goldwater's defense of extremism. Their message was not based on "We're more extreme than the otehr side." They disguised their actual extremism by disguising it as moderation. Their message was "We are the moderate majority. It's those otehr guys on the left who are the extremists."

Unfortunately, the extremists of the left fed into that, and ultimately discredited the legitimate points of those who wanted social and economic change for the better, but were not planning on some fantasy of "revolution" to accomplish it.


It's a mistake I'd hate to see us repeat this time around. I'd rather see us do the real hard work of bringing positive change in the real world.

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. Goldwater was willing to draw a line in the sand.

This far and no farther.

The problem isn't a failure of rhetoric, it's a failure of commitment. In the last thirty years, republicans have become deaf to our impotent yammering and because of that, have subverted the law itself.

Martin Luther King would have accomplished little were it not for Malcom X. Roosevelt would have accomplished little were it not for the Wobblies and the Molly McGuires.

Our elections are not legitimate until proven illegitimate, they are only legitimate until the public believes they are illegitimate. The burden of proof is on the government. When our election systems get to that point, (and for many of us it already has), we're no longer a democracy.

In engineering-speak, our self-correcting mechanisms are out of range. In the real world, this means that actual intervention is required to place the vehicle back on its wheels.

[toymachines]

22. WORD

[Kralizec]

15. Radical Humanism, Armstead, will not tolerate what is happening.

I say, to you, sir, sorry! SORRY YOU CAN'T SEE WHAT IS SO OBVIOUS TO OTHERS!

edit: caught a spelling error

[Armstead]

16. I can see it.

I've been paying attention since the 1960's.

But I believe that the antidote is not the bleak either/or choice that is presented in the Boiling Point thread.

[Kralizec]

18. Well I honestly hope you're right.

But I think the "Boiling Point" OP was very sincere in how he perceives things and I think he is sincere in what he wrote.

[Armstead]

19. I'm not challemging the sincerity

I can only assume the Boiling Point poster was totally sincere.

However, I see it crossing a line that would ultimately hurt, rather then help, everything we are trying to accomplish in the big picture.

[Kralizec]

17. When Democracy has been hijacked....

Then the water warms up very, very quickly. It has been warming up already for decades.

Armstead, I appreciate your point, but you're misjudging how bad things really are.

[dennisnyc]

29. but what, in real practical terms, are you proposing?

I think the hard work of organizing and education need to be accelerated dramatically.

[KittyWampus]

44. Do You Suppose Ghandi Or The Dalai Lama Underestimated How Bad

things really were/are?

[Kralizec]

47. Not at all.

Both also did not misjudge what they were up against, and took the proper action.

[pitohui]

49. the dalai lama is still an exile isn't he?

justice delayed is justice denied

his religion requires him to walk a certain path but there is no denying that he has been unsuccessful

[Media_Lies_Daily]

20. Just curious, but how long do you think the American people....

...are going to be willing to put up with a failing economy which includes rapidly rising costs and slowly falling wages? At what point will the human misery grow into more than just the current simmering anger?

How long do you think the American people are going to be willing to put up with an unwinnable Middle Eastern conflict CURRENTLY involving what used to be two sovereign countries? When will the American people begin taking to the streets in large numbers to protest this illegal and immoral war? At what point will that escalate into other things, particularly when these same people are laboring under the failing aconomy noted above?

How long do you think the American people are going to be willing to put up with an apparent inability to recover from natural disasters lie Katrina, Rita, and Wilma? What happens if we get hit with another "terrorist" attack? Can we expect the same level of "assistance" from those that have been squatting in our centers of power since December 2000?

It has been proven over and over again throughout history that when the common people become totally dissatisfied with their government, they will take to the streets. That may lead to outright revolt, and in many cases, it has. This is the danger that we all face...trying to act as if history will not repeat itself is pure folly, IMHO. Additionally, IMHO, we are DANGEROUSLY close to that point in time.

The solution, to avoid outright revolt, is to somehow accelerate the education/learning process of Americans who are not part of the 80,000+ members of this board. Once that strategy is uncovered, then the mandate to change without violence can be implemented. The danger is NOT discovering that strategy quickly enough to make a difference for the tens of millions of Americans that are suffering REAL misery. Those people will really be suffering this winter when they find they are no longer able to heat their homes because of the high price of heating oil.

[Armstead]

32. You're not necessarily disagreeing with me

To answer your basic question, it depends on the situation of individuals how long they will stand for it. In a sense you could say that a lot of poeple have been putting up with it since the dawn of time -- or since the founding of the US.

But you will never see a unified response. Society doesn't work that way. It operates on many different levels.

For example, the same instincts that make peope embrace liberal or progressive politics are often the same urges that drive people to conservative fundaamentalist Christianity. That is, a rejection of false materialistic values and crassness. They just have been driven in a different direction.

I do agree with you that fundamental education is necessary. It's also important to build infrastructures and support systems for positive change, so that people's dissastisfaction does not just double back inward as dead-end cynicism.

I also make a huge distinction between non-violent protest and extremism. People are takinb to the streets. They have been since at least 1999. Sure, it's not as wide a cross section as it might be, but protest has gradually gotten bigger aned more broadly based. Non-Violent protest is not what I would define as dead ending. The violent aspects are dead Ending it hownever.

Also a lot of peope are angry who would not consider being in a protest march, but who recognize the truth anyway.

Also look at the poll numbers for Bush and the GOP these days. That's gotta tell you something about how things are being chipped away.

And maybe, just maybe, the Democrats are actually becoming Democrats.

Those are the kind of things that will make a real difference.

[Beam Me Up]

21. "being wise as serpents, and gentle as doves."

I post this every once in a whle in an instance like this.

...knowledge brings responsibility. If we acknowledge that an inner circle of ruling elites controls the world's most powerful military and intelligence system; controls the international banking system; controls the most effective and far-reaching propaganda network in history; controls all three branches of government in the world's only superpower; and controls the technology that counts the people's votes, we might be then forced to conclude that we don't live in a particularly democratic system. And then voting and making contributions and trying to stay informed wouldn't be enough. Because then the duty of citizenship would go beyond serving as a loyal opposition, to serving as a "loyal resistance"Ñlike the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, except that in this case the resistance to fascism would be on the side of the national ideals, rather than the government; and a violent insurgency would not only play into the empire's hands, it would be doomed from the start.

Forming a nonviolent resistance movement, on the other hand, might mean forsaking some middle class comfort, and it would doubtless require a lot of work. It would mean educating ourselves and others about the nature of the truly apocalyptic beast we face. It would mean organizing at the most basic neighborhood level, face to face. (We cannot put our trust in the empire's technology.) It would mean reaching across turf lines and transcending single-issue politics, forming coalitions and sharing data and names and strategies, and applying energy at every level of government, local to global. It would also probably mean civil disobedience, at a time when the Bush regime is starting to classify that action as "terrorism." In the end, it may mean organizing a progressive confederacy to govern ourselves, just as our revolutionary founders formed the Continental Congress. It would mean being wise as serpents, and gentle as doves.

It would be a lot of work. It would also require critical mass. A paradigm shift.

Paranoid Shift

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. Here are some of my responses in that thread - I think we're responding to

the same tone, the same direction, the same problem. Let me say in advance that these were alkl responses to challenging and worthy arguments, and that I respect those I argued against. It is only for the purpose of space that I do not post their words to me. One can easily access that thread and examine them, in any case.

1)

You sound like the various factions of the former Yugoslavia right before the war. You sound like the radio propagandists that led the Hutus to murder the Tutsis.

You sound, in short, like nobody I want to be associated with. You think it's you who are aggrieved, to be sure, but you're talking the language of genocide, and I repudiate it wholly. Everyone who agrees with such tripe should be ashamed.

2)

"The other guy is ungovernable, unreasonable, and should die."

That's how simple it is. That a poster on DU is saying what amounts to the same thing is bad enough. That so many are heaping praise on such garbage is even worse. Garbage, fascism, genocide. This rhetoric is of the essence of all three. I have nothing to be ashamed of. The OP, on the other hand, needs to reflect on what he or she is saying here very seriously.

3)

But be very clear eyed about what kind of fight you want. The OP wants a genocidal fight, that's clear enough. He or she wants extermination.

Are these our options? Appeasment or extermination? I don't think so. In fact, I think that choice is nothing but another rhetoric of fascism masquerading as a choice. And you're doing it.

These are fascist rhetorics from start to finish. And it's despicable.

4)

And it was rants like this that led Bosnians of different religions (their own "Great Divide") to murder each other's neighbors and coworkers in the streets, and to shell each other's children. This sort of rhetoric has no future but calamity, death, atrocity, mass graves, bloodshed. Such rants always implicitly call for precisely that, whatever they may say explicitly.

We must reject such sentiments on their face. The original poster should be shamed for his or her disgusting rant, not widely praised. Never forget - as a slogan of holocaust remembrance doesn't just mean never forget the fact of the Holocausyt. It also means never forget the styles of human engagement that made the Holocaust possible. Dehumanization, the dream of a conflict-free polity, these are the styles of engagement that we're meant to oppose when we remember the Holocaust, yet these are precisely the styles of engagement of the original poster. It is the most disturbing fascist tripe I've ever seen on these boards. Sickening and scary that so many would sign on to that.

5)

I think your post is couched in the kind of language that leads to genocide, that makes genocide possible. Instead of shouting with caps and telling everybody that they are WRONG, perhaps you should go back and read your initial post and reflect on the way you are representing your opponents, from the plain folks who believe in the Republican platform to the most cynical power-hungry neo-con Congressperson. You hack them to pieces, rhetorically, by dehumanizing them and wishing for a conflict-free polity. It is a short leap to hacking them to pieces, actually, in the flesh and blood. It is totalitarian in its essence. Read it again carefully, and keep in mind that woman at the laundromat, or that man on the bus, or the commissioned officer, or the sixteen year old kid - keep in mind those who may believe in the other platform, truly believe it, and see what happens to them if your logic is put into practice. Hold their faces in your mind as you conduct this experiment, Make them real faces, real eyes, real flesh and blood. Do it.

You know, I've heard a lot of nonsense from the right wing about how the Balkans represent the failure of a multicultural society - usually in the course of arguing against multiculturalism in the university curriculum. But the Balkans don't represent the failure of a multicultural society. The Balkans represent the failure of monoculture, or the desire for monoculture. If the men who could look into those real faces, those real eyes, that real flesh and blood at Srebeniza could live with multiculturalism, they would never have fired a shot, never had laid a truncheon blow on a Muslim, never have kicked, punched, slapped. If they could live with the humanity of the other, in its radical difference, they would never have killed a one. Michael Douglas' character in Falling Down cannot live with difference, the radical difference of the other. He is far from a virtuous exemplar. He's a murderer at Srebeniza, Warsaw, Darfur, Kilgali, My Lai. And that is what I mean by the logic of genocide in your posts.

Now, I would by no means argue that one should lie down and take a beating. I'm against that, more than I'm willing to say here. But the option is rarely lie down or kill. Rarely. Sometimes, but rarely. And this is dangerous ground. And even when it comes to that, one can approach it without the fierce hatred you propose. One must enter even such circumstances with openness, even with love. You may have to kill that which seeks to kill your own difference, but you shouldn't kill difference itself in the process. And that, too, is what I mean by the logic of genocide in your posts.

This has nothing to do with you, or me, or thick skin, or the quality of your character, or any other such diversions you may lend to the discussion. This has to do with the history and quality of the rhetoric you're deploying - which you are both conscious of and taken up by, as the surfer is both at the mercy of and responsible to the wave. And you do have to answer for it. As to whether other people will listen to me, I am not primarily concernbed with that. I will put my position on your rhetoric out there, if only because its spiralling insanity demands a counterweight - some tether to the world of people, of faces, of eyes, of flesh and blood that would keep us from the abyss. You say nobody is listening. I suspect otherwise, but I'll let you portray the matter as you please - it is of little concern to me. Now, as for your final line, it's shocking to me that so much bluster could be followed by the ignore function. I have never hit ignore on anyone, because I find such postures cowardly in the extreme. I meet any argument lodged against me anywhere, and stop up my ears never. If that's how you roll, it's a surprise how blustery and blathery you've been in this thread about - ahem - standing up. But I suppose it is your option. Cheers.

6)

It is the logic of genocide that you are embracing. That's clear, and you have no response to it. There is no "reading too much into" it about it. I've laid out my criteria for the logic of genocide elsewhere and you can take them or leave them, find them displayed in your original posting or not. It's not about interpretation. It's about whether you dehumanize the other, and whether you desire a political monoculture (your own, of course). If these two conditions appear (and they do), then you are performing the logic of genocide. Whether you "support" genocide makes absolutely NO difference. This logic, this way of thinking, this way of engaging other human beings is what makes genocide possible long before a drop of blood is spilled.

[AuntPatsy]

24. I agree with Kralezic, though for some this can be viewed as the

voice of reason which I will concur that for some it is needed. The op you speak of had every right to voice his anger and frustration at what is occuring in our beloved country today...

I also agree with Kralezic that you don't realize just how bad it is.

So there you go, I agree with the original Op's boiling talk message and I also agree with your reasoning...

Is it possible to agree to both view points? I think it is, I had no doubt he was not attempting to threaten anyone, what I did understand was that he was letting them know he himself would not be threatened without having the means to defend himself and his family,

I have read so many message boards, and for the past few years I have definately read out and out threats against any and all who opposed this administration, people have threatened to kill liberals and democrats, too many for my comfort and I am sure others have experienced the same thing..

So for them to come out playing nice now and acting like they are the victim, "Chaps my hide" so to speak...

You reap what you sow, and the very real fact that we have an adminstration that continues day after day to divide this country based on ideologies and partisan leanings should set off warning bells inside every citizen of this country, they don't even try to hide it anymore, the media pushes this message daily.

The threats did not come from us, they threatened, we are only responding to those threats..

I always believed we were all Americans regardless of personal political ties, I have never in all my years seen such a push toward division of these factions of American citizens, and it is the Conservative Republican majority who seems to be doing their best to demand we all agree with them...

Thats not the American dream, they have led us into a nightmare..

So yes, the boiling point has been reached as the body counts continue to climb, how could one expect it not to?

[NashVegas]

27. It's a Nice Ideal, But Necessitates Two Willing Parties

And the wing of the Republican/Conservative side that has been gearing for battle for 15 years wants its battle.

If one can find moderate members of the opposing party who wish to compromise, great. But if those parties are out of power, they can do nothing.

Liberals/Dems need to reach a position of power before the other side can be forced to the bargaining table.

Until then, a little righteous anger is necessary to get things moving.

[Armstead]

34. Well, yeah. But I think you're missing my point

I am not sdaying righteous anger is not justified. Nor that we should back down. And democrats ought to be as partisan as possible at this point.

I'm talking about both the expectations and the extent of it, and what form that takes. I believe there are plenty of ways within the system to make those challenges, from national politics to grass roots progressive activism to simply applying decent values in our own jobs and choices as consumers.

[NashVegas]

35. I Know, But ...

I think many those who want, more than anything, the civil discourse to be productive, underestimate the extremes the opposition is willing to go to.

Think of the articles we saw in DU, relaying stories of how a barroom brawl led to a shooting, and the fight that started was over the war, at the outbreak of the war. Those people are the little footsoldiers the Reich wing is all too happy to employ without taking actual credit for. Without taking actual credit for. That part's important.

As long as no one on our side is willing to throw a punch, the Reich wins and they know it. It's an ugly thought, the direction I'm headed, I know that. But they aren't going to come to the bargaining table until they have something to lose.

PS - my great, great, grandfather was killed over such a brawl. He was an innkeeper who threw out a drunk patron who had an issue with the black banjo player entertaining the guests (circa 1906 or so). Said patron went to his buggy and came back with a 12 guage.

[Armstead]

38. Look at Jack Murtha

People's positions in these things shift.

Murtha was -- is -- one of the most pro-military hawks in Congress. He helped to push this war through. He was our opponent politically on the Iraq issue.

But now, he is the one who threw the Roundhouse Punch FOR US that has totally shifted the terms of the debate over Iraq. And he did it simply by opening his mouth and being honest.

Did he change as a person? No, not fundamentally. Did he change his opinion on this issue? Absolutely.

There's a message there. The guy who was your opponenbt yesterday might well be your biggest ally today. That's the problem with boiling everything down to "us" and "them."

[Greyhound]

28. Fine, but does not moderate discourse also require an equal forum and

willingness to listen?
Amerika is owned and run by extremists. They have no willingness to listen to alternate POV's, nor do they have any motivation to. They are in the unique (@ least unique for amerika) position of dictating to all of us how it will be, period. There is a complete and total lack of cooperation, let alone compromise, because there is nothing to compel them to compromise. They have won and they will do as they please. If that means they have to kill you, they will and have, without hesitation.
Where is the compromise you would have? Should we only give, say $4 billion, to the oil industry? How many poor and old people dying of exposure this winter is acceptable? How many of your fellow countrymen is it OK with you to leave homeless, unemployed, and helpless? Can they give away 25%, instead of 100%, of our national parks and forests to the logging, mining and oil corporations? Should they be allowed to read just your e-mail if they don't read your snail mail? Is it OK to relegate you to indentured servitude for 20 years, as opposed to the rest of your life, to pay back the crushing debt you took on to survive while they twisted the economy for their own purposes?
I just can't understand your position. The situation is already extreme, we are dying out here and you guys are talking about moderation and "being positive"!?!
:wtf:

[KarenS]

30. I agree, greyhound.

AND A rant is just that ~ a rant ~ one of the best I've seen.

[Armstead]

36. Oh fer Pete's sake

You are grossly oversimplifying things. It's too damn easy to blame "them" for what are really systemic problems in our own values and behavior.

Sure there is a ruling elite. I don't deny that, and if you have read any of my posts on DU it should be clear that I believe we should challenge that.

BUT we are all complicit in the things you are describing. Every damn one of us, unless you are a hermit who has totally eschewed technology and lives like a caveman in the hills.

The same peope who are getting screwed are also the ones who are doing the screwing. You don't want to give $4 billion to the oil industry? Don't drive, or heat your home. Burn wood, and add to the clouds that create global warming....You don't like the priorities and preessures that Corporate America is applying? Don;t buy sticks, don;t have a 401-K, don;t work for them on any level, don't ever patronize places like Wal-Mart.

Many of the people who make those threatening phone calls to people for bill collectors are themselves peope who thought they had to take the job to earn a living. They aren;t given any choices. And they protect themselves psychologucally by detaching from the interests of their peers.

Instead of railing against "them," we need to start start recognizing that we are all at fault. If you want to change things, pick what you want to work with and change it.

Waiting for some fictional "revolution" against "them" is not going to topple it. Working to convince and make it possible for average people to survive and "do the right thing" simultaneously is the only way to change things.

[Greyhound]

41. Since you have not addressed a single issue, and seem to want to give them

a pass, I can only assume you are either one them, or an apologist ass.

[Armstead]

53. I may be an ass...But I'm not an apologist

If you think the present mess could have ben created by a handful of all powerful overlords, you've been reading too much cheap fiction.

You certainly have never read some of my posts where I did address exactly many of those issues. I am hardly an apologist. Just a realist who tries not to simplify the world into easy stereotypes.

[Greyhound]

55. It was not a "handful of all powerful overlords", it was a large group

of politiwhores from both parties working for many years. However, you still have not addressed the main point which is how much is enough or too much? How much is acceptable? I think you've just been so comfortable for so long that, like most amerikans, you've lost touch with reality. Just look at what these people have done and are doing all over the world.
:banghead:

[Armstead]

56. Now you're being an ass

I've been working in my own small way to bring these issues to light in work and volunteer activities since the early 1970's.

I've been concerned (to say the least) about the consolidation of wealth and power since that time, and have been worried about the political consequences (not partisan but politics in the sense of saving democracy). Much of my career has been based on the goal of tossing alternatives to the "conventional wisdom" that got us into this mess into the public mix.

I even went through a period in my younger years when I assumed there would be some "glorious revolution" and a change in consciousness.

So don't give me your self-righteous crap. If you are still waiting for a glorious turning point in which everyone wakes up simultaneously, be my guest. But you're wasting your time and your attitude is counterproductive.

Your icon of banging your head against a wall is very appropriate, if you plan on spending your life believing that change is going to occur in that way. Things got bad because of a lot of little things, and as I said above, we are all complicit in that in various ways. (I include myself in that.) The only way things will ever change is to recognize that central fact, argue for alternatives constrictively and try and turn the tide in whatever small "positive" ways we can. Those cumulative steps also require respecting people, not assuming they are stupider than you are.

Get real.

[Greyhound]

58. Apparently you're laboring under the false impression that I want

or expect things to change. Quite the opposite, I fully expect people to keep ignoring the problems or pretending that they don't exist until it is too late. Personally I think it is already too late. The OP of the "Boiling point" thread was just voicing an increasingly common frustration with the total inaction of, what is supposed to be, the opposition.
The only reason I responded to your post was that I believe you are placing too much faith in 'them' and their supporters to engage in a reasonable debate of opposing views. They are not interested in debate or even tolerating a different POV. If they could, they would destroy all of us that do not agree with them. They wouldn't care if we all dropped dead tomorrow and many would gladly help us on our way. I believe that was what he (the OP) was trying to convey with his comparison to the terminator, the idea that they cannot be reasoned with, that they have no concern, no pity, nor compassion, for anyone that doesn't drink the kool-aid.

[Armstead]

61. If you don't want or expect change...

then what is your point? Why are you bothering to argue on a politica;l diuscussion board? And why bother ranting and raving?

If you don't give a rip and just want to complain, then join the "silent majority" that you claim to be so opposed to. I know a lot of people whose fatalism makes them defacto enablers of the right wing and the corporate powers.

Maybe if you really don't give a rip, you'd be better off just drinking some brewskis, getting laid and enjoying the simple pleasures, instad of ranting and railing against "Amerika" and those of us who you claim are so naive and wussie.

[Greyhound]

65. Wow, did you even read the same post?

I never said I didn't want change, I did say I expected nothing to happen until it's too late, maybe that's where you got that. I obviously do 'give a rip' (euphemism for shit?), the loss of my country breaks my heart, else I wouldn't bother with this.
I believe, and history confirms, that your position of 'cooler heads prevailing' and 'wheels grind slowly', while normally correct, just isn't with these extremists in charge. Look at where we were just 5 years ago. The entire landscape is radically different today, and not for the better. I've never seen anything like it in my lifetime, and I don't believe anything like it has happened since 1929.
Back then Huey Long was the radical voice that spurred the masses and scared the do-nothing Dems into action. Without his 'rabble-rousing' FDR wouldn't have adopted his agenda and brought about the sweeping changes that, literally, saved the nation from a bloody conflict at least, and possibly a civil war.
Where's our Huey Long? Dean seems to be the closest thing we have right now and I haven't heard him say anything even close to what will be required to undo the massive damage that has been done.

[Armstead]

68. I agree we need rabble rousing

Just because I reject the notion of some glorious revolution, or civil war or not so veiled call to arms of the Boiling Point post doesn't I don't think we need some good ol populist rabble rousing.

One of my political heroes is Bernie Sanders. IMO he's one fo the truth tellers, and I wish to hell the Democrats would take up his no-holds-barred style (which does get a lot of support among the working class in Vermont)....But he's doing it within the system. The only problem with Bernie is thatb there needs to be more like him...leaders like him are the ones who could pu;ll us out of this mess in a political sense.

As for my interpretation of what you said, I based it on this:

"Apparently you're laboring under the false impression that I want
or expect things to change."

That to me seems pretty straightforward. but if I misunderstood it, I apologize.

[bananas]

31. Can somebody post a link to the "Boiling Point" thread?

Never mind, I think I found it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5403518&mesg_id=5403518

[AuntPatsy]

33. I was looking for it for you but got distracted, sorry.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5403518&mesg_id=5403518

[bvar22]

37. I will "moderate" my position.....

...right after I finish driving a STAKE through the evil, black heart of "Compassionate Conservatism" and "ProCorporate Democratic Centrism"!



The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM
for those who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners)
at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Armstead]

39. Um, I'm not saying we should be "centrist"

As I noted above, there are degrees of opposition and ways of harnessing it.

While I disagre with radical extremism, that does not mean I support waffling politicians either.

[bvar22]

40. Grin

I actually agree with you.
The cooler heads WILL come up with a workable solution (we need one) and the alliances necessary to implement it.

I don't want to totally exterminate the Republicans (and Republicrats). I want to keep a few around in Zoos so I can show them to my grandchildren and say, "SEE! This is waht happens when you vote for Republicans!"

[Greyhound]

42. Kick

Not done with this one yet.

[PhilipShore]

43. In modern politics people are moved by perceptions not logic

Without doubt, our modern world is in the worst state it has ever been in the history of it.

I think someone asked some famous Nazi, I forgot his name--what was it that made the Nazi’s so successful? He said something as we simply applied technology (which was new back then) to strategies of war.

I wish I had an easy answer, but non-violent thinkers such as Gandhi, MLK, and JFK are great masters, that liberal Democrats can learn from--- and use to counter the Republicans. Why not use the liberal Democrats such as those of Gandhi etc. to define your message then—some Republican such as Limbaugh's definition of liberalism.

Actually, I think liberalism is on the rise, that it died when Kennedy was shot. Sure their were liberals like Ginsberg, Abbie Hoffman and some others on TV, but they were not real liberals, they were manufactured by the media liberals whom—were given the role of spokesmen for liberalism. The non-violent-- Gandhian-- anti-war movement of the time did not make Ginsberg the leader, but the media made him into one.

After, the 2000 election people are saying to themselves or even perhaps to the world that they want, more liberalism in their political philosophy of the world.

The road is not going to be easy because they will ignore you , and hate you for it and you will mostly feel alone—in your counter points to the Republicans-- but that is the way it was in the time of Gandhi as it is today. Human nature has not changed at all since then-- only the technology of the means in which we use to see the world has changed.

Relax—take up, some meditation—change your own perceptions of the world-- inside yourself and the world will change for the better.

[rockymountaindem]

45. Good points, all.

I think too many people have a glorified view of civil war and the "to the barricades!" mentality. None of those things are fun or to be taken lightly.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. I am angry, and I have been angry since 1980. I am as angry at

the DINO enablers of the Republican revolution as I am at the Republicans, because the DINOs are traitors to the side that they supposedly represent.

However, I also know history, and history tells me a few things:

1) Violent revolts are always crushed unless they can find a way to win the support of the citizenry at large.

Countless student radicals aroudn the world in the 1960s and 1970s thought that "the people" would rise up and join them if they started shooting and bombing. Wrong. "The people" were delighted when student radicals were captured and imprisoned.

2) Two things are necessary for ordinary people to join in a revolt:

a) Really bad economic and political conditions, worse than any that have existed in the U.S. since the Great Depression (which saw a few local riots, but no national uprising). The Russian Revolution occurred not only because of an unpopular war (World War I) but because the government had responded to non-violent requests for greater democracy with cold-blooded massacres of peaceful protestors and more stringent laws, and because people were starving due to the lousy economy.

b) Raised consciousness among the public. Otherwise it's easy for the powers that be to direct people's anger toward the usual scapegoats. Hitler told the German people that their miseries after World War I were due to vengeful enemies (partly true) and evil Jewish bankers (untrue). The aristocrats of the South kept their white sharecroppers in line by giving them a few privileges beyond those granted to black sharecroppers.

We aren't anywhere near there for a), and the MSM have made sure that b) is not the case.

Anyone who tried a violent revolt today or next week or any time soon would

1) get killed or imprisoned and

2) find most of the public applauding their deaths or capture.

I'm not saying that's the way things should be. I'm saying that that's the way things are.

Remember that Argentina and Uruguay were able to kill tens of thousands of their own political dissidents with nary a protest from anyone except the relatives of the disappeared.

ON EDIT: I agree with rockymountaindem. I think some of the revolutionary wannabes see themselves as charging over the barricades like someone in a 19th-century of the Paris Commune. That's now how it works in real life.

[PhilipShore]

51. Good points

In addition, the Republican hate-mongers are more sophisticated then they were in the 60s and 70s. I was not able to vote back then—but their were lunatics such as Mansion, and the famous kidnapping of Patty Hearst.

Right around the time Kennedy was shot—the peace movement was falling fast—it somehow had enough resources—to stop the Vietnam War—but it without doubt was not stopped because of liberals crowned to be liberals (by the media) of the time like Ginsberg, and Hoffman.

The Republican hate-mongers are very smart--they know that the best way-- to use someone as a spy (via the CIA) for their own war efforts-- is that when they want someone to spy for them—they do not want the spy they are training to know they are spies--so they can thus create groups of people—that are more—of the psychological profile of --Mansion and Patty Hearst-- to get into the peace movement, and it worked most of the peaceniks in the 60s and 70s left the peace movement-- specifically because--lunatics-- were all the sudden popping up all over the place-- so the peaceniks literally became scared for their lives and left.

Remember the movie Telefon, well that is exactly what the Republican Military-Industrial-complex were doing back in the 60s and 70s in the peace movement-- as well as for the sheeple that were part of its own people—which later developed Al- Qaeda.

[Exiled in America]

50. I can summarize your post in one sentence, OP:

The "Boiling Point" post asks us to throw away every principle and ideal that separates us from the very people we claim to so fiercely oppose, and asks us instead to defeat them by becoming them -- which is something I will never, ever do.

[Batgirl]

57. good thread topic -- checking our own vital signs

I think some of us are feeling like we haven't gotten angry enough, soon enough, and that our peaceful natures have contributed to this coup where rightwing extremists were able to get a chokehold on our country with barely a whimper from us. Liberals believe in moderation, debate, playing by the rules, and for a long time we thought everyone else believed in these things too, even our political opponents. So now some of us are feeling almost embarrassed, like we stood by and let this evil unfold thinking it was so crazy and wrong they'd never get away with it.

For instance, my personal dislike of conflict is such that I feel a bit of tension over trivial things like returning an item to the store and asking for a refund. (Pitiful but true.) How mad do you think I had to get to be willing to go stand by the side of a busy road in my town waving a peace flag before the Iraq invasion? What emotional state did I have to achieve in order to get into a loud argument in the checkout lane with some freeper type who held up Time magazine's "man of the year" Bush cover in front of my face and proclaimed how wonderful it was to have a "president we can be proud of"?

I think some of the boiling point talk is an attempt to "over-correct" for the liberal tendency to shrink away from overt expressions of anger. Or it's like athletes whipping themselves up for the big game.

I'm not afraid that liberals are going on a violent rampage anytime soon; maybe the downside could be if some individuals stay permanently at the boiling point and just burn out psychologically -- because no matter what happens to Bush, I think we're in a long term battle of ideologies. And I don't thing that fight can be fought with the kind of rage that becomes sputtering and impotent, but rather by a cold, rational anger that doesn't burn itself out. And hopefully that's not just me seeing things through my filter of wimpishness.

[Time for change]

59. I'm not sure exactly what your main point is because

you use a lot of generalities in your OP. Also, it doesn't help that, although I read the boiling point thread, I don't remember exactly what it said.

I'm not at all certain that the tide is turning in our favor. Our elections have been privatized to an extra-ordinary degree. The machines that count our votes are "proprietary", so if we believe that they have not performed satisfactorily we don't have the right to inspect them.

And private corporations have taken over the good majority of our mainstream news sources.

Privatized elections, privatized corporate news. Do we still live in a Democracy?

Was the American Revolution fought for a cause more important than what we are facing now?

[Exiled in America]

60. It's not about fighting or not fighting.

It's about how you fight and what you fight for.

Example: I want our soldiers to fight when it is a just cause and in defense of this country -- that doesn't mean I want them to fight by becoming exactly like the enemy, say by choosing to torture, or use internationally banned weapons, or engage in genocide or the indiscriminate killing of civilians.

"Anything" does not go in the name of the "ends." I believe that it is possible to fight and be right at the same time. In fact not only do I believe that, but I also believe that is the only thing that will actually save this country.

We don't win by becoming everything that we disdain - no one has ever won any lasting significant change by doing that, not to mention the fact that its a little hard to profess our outrage at our opponents then condone acting exactly like them in the next breath.

It's not about refusing to fight. It's about how we fight. I believe in the "just" war against neo-conservative tyranny. And there are plenty of examples of excellent men and woman courageous enough to fight and fight hard without becoming the enemy in the process.

[Time for change]

62. So, did the boiling point thread advocate becoming like our opponents?

I don't remember it that way.

[Exiled in America]

63. Yes indeed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. No it did not

and I know some have chosen to read it that way... but it did not

Now I will remind you the American Revolution was fought after no other recourse was left, and against corporate power... we may be reaching that point again... thuogh revolution are most of the time not violent... they get to the brink and the change occurs...

[Exiled in America]

67. Yes, yes it did.

"No compassion..."

"No understanding..."

"No sympathy...."

Lack of nuance, breaking everything into black or white either ors - that kind of absolutism (like in saying "they are all guilty") is the hallmark of both fundamentalism and neo-conservative ideology.

When you choose to call "them" quote "filthy and degenerate" you're talking about my parents. Who would have never come to understand how lied to they had been all these years and joined the Democratic party if they had EVER ran into someone with the attitude on display in that thread.

Saying "I no longer find their existence acceptable" - how am I supposed to read that any other way than you saying you want them dead. Well, congratulations - in surrendering to irrational anger, black and white thinking, a refusal to see complexity or nuance, and and a compassionless attitude - you have officially become them.

I will repeat my previous post:

It's about how you fight and what you fight for. No one is suggesting we not stay and fight. But some of us are suggesting that we don't become the enemy in the process.

Example: I want our soldiers to fight when it is a just cause and in defense of this country -- that doesn't mean I want them to fight by becoming exactly like the enemy, say by choosing to torture, or use internationally banned weapons, or engage in genocide or the indiscriminate killing of civilians.

"Anything" does not go in the name of the "ends." I believe that it is possible to fight and be right at the same time. In fact not only do I believe that, but I also believe that is the only thing that will actually save this country.

We don't win by becoming everything that we disdain - no one has ever won any lasting significant change by doing that, not to mention the fact that its a little hard to profess our outrage at our opponents then condone acting exactly like them in the next breath.

It's not about refusing to fight. It's about how we fight. I believe in the "just" war against neo-conservative tyranny. And there are plenty of examples of excellent men and woman courageous enough to fight and fight hard without becoming the enemy in the process.