Can we fight "Either/Or Dualism" without being "Centrist" sell outs?

[Armstead]

This is a little philosophical, but it's worth discussing.

I've noticed something within myself, and I wonder if it's just me or if it's a common feeling among liberals and progressives.

These are two opposing instincts, in a political/social sense.

1)We liberals/progressives need to push as hard as we can, and go on the offense against the Corporate State and the GOP Right-Wing to reclaim this country (and the world). I can't stand the "centrist" sell out to the corporatist right wing that has occurred over the last 30 years. We have to stick to our beliefs to change that.

BUT

2)Everyone needs to rediscover the importance of tolerance and compromise. Dualism and Polarization is one of the major problems afflicting the US and the world. Increasingly everything tends to be divided into two warring camps, whether it is political, cultural or religious. "You're either with us or against us" seems to be the common view of the world today. That leads to poisonous politics domestically, an inability to work together to solve problems and it is a potential apocolypse globally.

The question is how to reconcile these two competing beliefs? and polarization? Are there solutions to issues that all sides could agree on, or at least find compromises? Or does it have to be either/or?

In political terms is there an alternative to mushy sell-out centrism that is not polarizing? Can liberals/progressives stick to our guns, while also reaching out and accepting that compromise is necessary?

I dunno. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[RevCheesehead]

1. what's left?

Is compromise a sell-out? :shrug:

And yes, I know it's a sell-out if only one side is doing the compromising.

[Armstead]

13. Depsnds on the situation

That is partly the result of the problem. We lose sight of the difference between compromise and giving up.

For example, I believe strongly in the minimum wage, and beyond that a living wage.

But I am also willing to bend in orderr to reflect specific realities. For example, a small business that can't afford to pay high wages is different than a big corporation that can afford it, but chooses not to. So if compromises can be made to accomodate the needs of small businesses without sacrificing the basic principle of minimum/living wage, we should look at that....That's different than selling out by keeping it at a ridiculously low level or deliberatly writing it to include loopholes for the Wal Marts of the world.

[RevCheesehead]

23. Well, yeah - isn't that part of negotiating?

When I came to this church, our custodian was getting $7/hour (for approximately 5 hours/week cleaning the church). I told the Staff-Parish committee that they needed to get to the going rate of $10/hour. That was 3 years ago. Right now, her salary is at $8.50/hour. But I'm still pushing them, and will continue to do so, until her salary reflects the going rate for cleaning persons in this area. I told them it's not only a justice issue, it's also a moral issue.

[Armstead]

26. You're right to keep pushing, but....

Just because you disagree with them on the specific rate of pay doesn't translate into hatinging each other (I assume), or you assuming that they want her to starve.

That's the difference between dualism and compromise. Compromise means all sides look at their common goals, and look for a synthesis that will achieve them...or at least when there is not common ground to deal with the differences civilly.

[Deep13]

2. We can move towards an egalitarian society...

...without agreeing on or offending people's basic assumptions (values). To me 'progressive' means something different than 'liberal.' Progressive means the trend towards egalitarianism and democracy and away from concentrated power by the rich elite. The opposite is not conservative but 'regressive.' Liberal overlaps somewhat but is geared more towards specific social issues. Liberal means generous and is the tendency to let people do what they want and to give them what they want. What bugs me is that some (though not all or even most) liberals insist that disagreement with them on issues they judge to be liberal and somehow absolute somehow makes me a dupe or a sell-out.

[ACK]

3. The only things we ever had to compromise on are the wimp issues

The ones that are used to paint our candidates as weak and wussy.

1. Gun control - sorry just leave it the fuck alone on the national stage.

2. Death penalty - Americans want their revenge. It sucks but that is the way it is.

3. Defense - Clinton trimmed back a notch (not much) on defense spending but he could talk up streamlining and re-organizing the military in a post-Cold War world. You have to at least talk up strong defense and act like you care.


Everything else you can be as liberal as you damn well want. The American people in vast majorities support Universal healthcare and a clean environment and no pro-lifer is voting Dem anyway so go for it people. Cut back on that corporate subsidies putting yourself out there as a man of the people making the big boys pay their fair share. Be populist again.

We have to find charismatic candidates that are able to talk outside of the intellectual university liberal speak and do not conform to the fence-sitting naunced positions of many of our candidates as of late. Instead the speech has to be populist and to the point and liberal. And you know if we do not come off as stiff fence sitting wormy fucks we might actually win some elections.

The DLC took away all the wrong lessons from Clinton. He won despite the fact he was a fence-sitter on many issues because he was charismatic. Instead of finding more charismatic leaders and turning the talk slowly, slowly to the left they got us a bunch of fence-sitters moving more and more to the right. What has that gotten us? 12 years of Repuke hell.

[Armstead]

6. Good points...

I think one of the problems of what I call "dualism" is that it confuses politics with lifestyle and personal tastes.

The right wing associates "liberals" with people who they just plain don't like. And vice versa. It's sort of like high school applied on a national scale.

Somehow we've got to get beyond those straightjackets, and recognize the more important underlying issues.

Latte drinkers and union guys may have different lifestyles, but that have similar economic interests and both benefit from the concept of tolerant liberal democracy.

[omega minimo]

9. Don't reinforce the "straitjackets" yourself

"Latte drinkers and union guys may have different lifestyles"


So what if a "union guy" likes a nice foamy latte?

A "latte drinker" is in a union?

[Armstead]

18. A union guy is a Mr. Coffee guy....Okay I'm kidding

[ACK]

11. Latte sippers and union men

I have said many times the greatest failure of new liberalism is the disconnect between the working poor and the college educated liberals born out of the anti-war movement of the sixties.

This disconnect is not between ideals overall but is in speech and the conversation of ideas. Many of the same goals are shared in a strong economy, support for the union, support for teachers, healthcare policy, regulation, and even environmental policy. What we lost was the communication of those ideals down to the men and women still working in the meat plants, the diners and running the long hauls. Most of my close kin. :) The real key is to explain ourselves. I know we are right but if you are too damn sure of yourself to explain in simple and straightforward talk about what you stand for the guy on the street thinks you are wormy trying to dance around the issues.

Is it because they are stupid as some folks here in some threads seem to imply by posting diss threads on whole segments of the population and areas of the country?

No. Listen I remember when Kerry talked up "accountability" in education when he laid out his education policy in the last election and if your position so goddamn "naunced" that people like ourselves on this site argue about it for 18 threads of 150 posts a piece about wtf he meant guess what? The casual observer of politics will NOT get it either.

[omega minimo]

31. Isnt' that a Repuglican line?

"the greatest failure of new liberalism is the disconnect between the working poor and the college educated liberals born out of the anti-war movement of the sixties."






"This disconnect is not between ideals overall but is in speech and the conversation of ideas. Many of the same goals are shared in a strong economy, support for the union, support for teachers, healthcare policy, regulation, and even environmental policy. What we lost was the communication of those ideals down to the men and women still working in the meat plants, the diners and running the long hauls. Most of my close kin."

DU needs to hear more of the voices of DUers like this, speaking to common issues and not either lurking or fighting over terms. And calling DUers on statements that do seem to reflect "elitist" assumptions.


"The real key is to explain ourselves. I know we are right but if you are too damn sure of yourself to explain in simple and straightforward talk about what you stand for the guy on the street thinks you are wormy trying to dance around the issues."

This is why some of us on DU are not fans of "Framing." If it sounds phony and condescending, it will backfire.

[ACK]

44. I prefer the term Repuke but I think it was - Class war of sorts

Thought it was one of the basic ideas of the Southern Strategy. To learn from one's enemies and to adjust to the conditions of combat is a fundamental skill of war.

We are in a class war.
We should not be ashamed but shout it to the highest heavens!

We cannot let our own divisions between the highly educated activist base and the working class we say so loudly we are trying to save be so far that we sound in the end as if we are talking down to the guy working his ass off day to day.

The "framing" of issues I agree is both phony and condescending. We have to get out there and explain why we are right and be proud and clear in what we say.

"Nothing is free in this country
And there is no place to hide..."
Uncle Tupelo Sauget Wind

Al Franken once had a chapter in one of his book explaining why liberal policies are good for the average voter in a direct way.

Sounds selfish? But we are not the party of the corporations and the selfish right? Yes, but you have to explain to the people why voting for your party and your beliefs will directly benefit him because nothing is free in this country.

See maybe you don't want a hand out. Just a wage you can actually live on instead of just getting by.

Yeah and maybe you are tired of living in that tiny apartment or that tin box on wheels in the middle of the woods.

Perhaps you are tired of working two jobs just to be able to come home and try to explain to your daughter that she can't go to the doctor even if you suspect that flu is more like strep.

Maybe you are just mad cause the company that shipped your last good job overseas is getting a tax break for their efforts and you don't understand why nobody seems to really care.

On one hand, maybe you hate your shit jobs. Working the graveyard at the conveince store and the afternoon shift somewhere else.

But maybe you don't.

Maybe you like cutting meat and come on there are folks and I knew them that got a thrill out of running a grill on the morning rush and watching the hash fly.

And it still hurts when that man in the suit looks onto you with pity so fuck em all.

[omega minimo]

48. Like with the latte cliche, using their terms is NOT countering them

it reinforces them and confuses the discussion.

"Thought it was one of the basic ideas of the Southern Strategy. To learn from one's enemies and to adjust to the conditions of combat is a fundamental skill of war."




"We cannot let our own divisions between the highly educated activist base and the working class we say so loudly we are trying to save be so far that we sound in the end as if we are talking down to the guy working his ass off day to day."

And if we got past all the assumptions about who we are, we could have an honest discussion about what is really going on in this country to the "base" and the "class" where the lines are blurrier than many realize.


The best source on this IMHO is Thom Hartmann who not only explains what's going on, he uses the sort of clear, plain language we're calling for here.

:thumbsup:

[ACK]

51. But if your enemy has the goods on you

You cannot ignore that fact.

We are and you said so, framing the issues and there is a disconnect even seen here on the threads making fun of the South and the Midwest between the activists and guy out there in the real world living the hump.

We have to speak up and take back the language of the arguement and carry on the fight without shirking our duty in the fight to take our country back from the brink.

[omega minimo]

54. I was referring to the use of a Repug meme

"the greatest failure of new liberalism is the disconnect between the working poor and the college educated liberals born out of the anti-war movement of the sixties...."

repeating that reinforces obsolete and harmful cliches

[Armstead]

57. Hartmann is an example of what we need more of

If the political/media complex would allow more people like Hartmann to be represented every day in the MSM and political debates, the country would be in a lot better shape.

The problem is there is too little of that. Inbstead we're subjected to a mix of cartoon stereotypes representing "liberal" and "conservative" or bland wafflers who muddle everything up.

[Armstead]

34. The latte line was self-depricating humor folks....

Sometimes I drink latte....Sometimes I drink raunchy stale Maxwell House that's been on the burner too long.

My original underlying point, is that such images are at the base of the problem of polarization today. That is lifestyle inappropriately associated with political positions regarding what is important -- especially wealth and power.

I'm fortunate in that I live in an area where social/political divisions are not very strong. There are many solid liberal Democrats here who are hardasses personally. It shows how lifestyle is less important than actual positions on real issues. That is what should be more prevalent than the Latte vs. Real Coffee stereotypes, IMO.

[ACK]

38. I drink lattes too

I even drink the iced lattes so I am even worse. :)

[omega minimo]

45. Well, there it is.

:hi:

[omega minimo]

40. Then you are proof that those stereotypes are phony or obsolete

so you don't need to reinforce them, either. :hi:

[Armstead]

42. Okay -- But I also have fairly long hair....So..

I'm one of those dang long-haired liberals too. :P

Okay I know. Charlie Daniels and Ted Nugent have long hair too.

[kentuck]

4. We can accept the "will of the people" or...

we can rebel against it. If we accept "democracy" as the solution to most of our problems, can we accept if the other side wins - even if we know they are destructive to our own country and the world? What, then, is the alternative? That is where we have come. That is the end of the road.

[Armstead]

7. I don't think it;'s the will of the people.

It's a failure of our democracy to live up to its own principles.

It's the failure of political leaders and the media to allow people to have the knowledge to make informed decisions. I don't mean esoteric intellectual knowledge. Just the basics. Common sense and basic facts have been spun into oblivion.

Rather than the end of the road, I see it as a lousy long detour. We we've been closser to the correct road before (within my lifetime). The trick is finding our way back to a point where it is possible to move forward again.

[blm]

5. I think we take opportunities to inform people using language they can

understand and respond to.

For instance - if you're presented with an opportunity to promote the liberal policies you support that are more effective in reducing number of abortions to a religious audience, do you use scripture to point out Jesus' teachings that back the liberal worldview, or do you use the same speech you would make at a NARAL rally?

I'm an atheist, and I come down on the side of using the scripture that bolsters the case FOR liberal policies - because I do believe a liberal named Jesus did walk and try to inform his fellowbeings.

[ACK]

30. Missed this reply - damn good point

I think you also have to stand up for what you believe in and say it straight out.

Don't dance around it but come out straight and plain and say what you damn well believe.

Good point, blm.

[omega minimo]

8. Stop tormenting yourself, Armstead

:hug:



Next, look at the "centrism" of ACK and figure out how to convey to people like that, that "fence sitting wormy fucks" = corporatist enablers.




GOOD LUCK :hi:

[Armstead]

14. Oh I'm not tormenting myself -- I just like to chew on these things

What is ACK by the way?

[ACK]

15. Meant me

Its my handle here.

[Armstead]

17. Oh, sorry . I should have made the connection.

I thought it was an acronym for some organization.

[leftofthedial]

10. well, either we can

or we can't.

:Shrug:

[wyldwolf]

12. Do you beat still beat your wife?

The very definition of "centrist" is a rejection of the Either/Or Dualism present on DU almost daily.

[Armstead]

16. Centrist is a misleading word -- it's not the same as moderate

As it is currently defined and practiced, it is conservatism.

IMO a true centrist would be a liberal who is moderate.

It's not a hair-splitting distinction. It mattersd when it gets down to real issues.

[wyldwolf]

19. the dictionary differs with you and you're OP is an insult

cen·trist (sntrst) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "centrist"

n.
One who takes a position in the political center; a moderate.
adj.
Marked by or adhering to a moderate political view

---------------

Centrists are ideologically flexible. Centrists recognize the complexity of public policy choices and look to many kinds of solutions. Which solution depends on the circumstances, the problem, and the public interest. Ideologues repeat their slogans with little regard to the specific policy problem at hand. Conservatives shout “private good, public bad.” Liberals shout “public good, private bad.” By contrast, the centrist movement can show politicians how to use both the private and public sectors (often in combination) to creatively solve problems that we would otherwise just shout about.

[Armstead]

20. Small "c" centrist is different than its use by some Centrists

The center is a totally subjective concept. So is flexibility.

I am a centrist and I am flexible on a lot of issues. But in the current artificial political template my beliefs are defined as "leftist" and "fringe" even though they are the basioc vierws shared by most Americans.

For one example, I believe that it is important to ensure that we have a diverse and broadly based economy, in which wealth is spread as widely as possible and competition provides consumers with choice.
As a logical extension of that, I believe we ought to have as many companies as possible within easch industry sector.

Pretty basic, eh? Most poeple would agree with that.

However, raw "free market" capitalism moves in the opposite direction if it is unregulated and uncontrolled.

What has happened over the last 30 years is that the economy has become more centralized, and wealth has become more unequally divided between rich and poor, with the middle class sinking towards poor while the top upper end gets richer. Also, by allowing immense monopolies to form, we have fewer but larger companies, which have sqwueezed out the middle.

The policies and propaganda of corporate CONservatives have allowed that to happen. The Democratic "centrists" have supported that all the way.

It's not thge true center when the results run counter to what will benefit the majority, and also runs counter to what the majority actuially believe in.

[wyldwolf]

22. small "c" centrist? LOL

Spin. Pure spin. There are no big "C" centrists. It isn't recognized as a party like big "D" Democrats and big "R" Republicans. It is a state of mind.

Centrisism by it's very nature is tolerant of other viewpoints, which is why anyone who calls centrists "sellouts" cannot possibly be one.

[Armstead]

24. Okay then they are Neo-Centrists --- The Dem version of Neo-Cons

If you think "Centrism" (with a big c) is tolerant of otehr viewpoints, I'd suggest you pay more attention to the rhetoric coming out of the DLC. Bashing the opponents of the Iraq War, for example, as the leftist fringe isn;t exactly tolerant.

...Especially when most of the country now has the same opinion about Iraq that the "fringe" had in the run-up to the war. So today, being critical of the Iraq War has become the true centrist (small c) position.

I'm not just playing rhetorical word games here. Underlying my original post was a question about how to find a true center.

[wyldwolf]

25. an even funnier proposition

...from the mind of a leftist trying to convince himself he is a centrist.

If you think "Centrism" (with a big c) is tolerant of otehr viewpoints, I'd suggest you pay more attention to the rhetoric coming out of the DLC. Bashing the opponents of the Iraq War, for example, as the leftist fringe isn;t exactly tolerant.

There is a scary tendency coming from the left these days to equate dissent and disagreement of their viewpoints with attacking and "bashing." Your statement above testified to it. According to you, the DLC cannot possibly be centrist because they disagree with you.

[Armstead]

27. I'm a leftist and I'll acknowledge that...But most people are

You seem to be simply parrotting the dualistic conventional wisdom.

I know many people who are moderate-to-conservative, but who have the same basic opinions on many specific issues that I do. Most of them hate the Corporate Monopolization that has occurred over the last 30 years. Most of them are pissed at things like the high cost of health insurance, etc.

I'm not talking about self-identified "liberals" or "leftists." I'm talking average middle-of-the-road people.

Your attitude about this seem to epitomize the rigid labeling that I am talking about as part of Either/Or Dualism.

[wyldwolf]

33. no, most people are not

Most people agree on the position on issues that most benefits them. Often, these are liberal positions. Many times, they are not.

But an ideologue is stringent. They call for lock-step agreement or else be labeled "DINO" and "RINO." An ideologue is more concerned with ideological purity than progress.

Most leftwingers and rightwingers are ideologues.

[Armstead]

35. Most capital C Centrists are also rigid ideologues

[wyldwolf]

36. as I mentioned, and you agreed with, there are no capital "C" centrists

and the very definition of centrism disallows rigidness because the positions they hold were arrived at by taking both black/white, either/or sides into consideration. Centrist position are ever-changing based on new information.

[Armstead]

39. Not a bad definition, but it's all a matter of degree.

What I believe we need is to have a synthesis of liberal and conservative beased on the constant interplay of both. Each redpresents different aspects of our individual and collective interests.

That's a difficult balance to achieve and maintain, but it gets to the dilemma I started with in my OP.

What is required to maintain that balance and a true center are creative tensions between those are are oriented to the conservative view and those who are more oriented to the left view. (As well as the variations of each.)

That means competing sides with a core of strong convictions to represent those interests. In the political system we have, Democrats represent the majority view on the liberal side, while GOPers represent the majority on the other.

If one side or the other loses the willingness to stand for their principles, the balance becomes lopsided. And when that happens, the so-called "center" is not really the center, but the complete dominance of one side.

It also leads to a false form of Either/Or Dualism, because instead of actual competition on real issues, the focus is more on the peripheral issues, which leads to the phony associatioin of lifestyle and personality with political position.

[wyldwolf]

49. well, sure its a matter of degree.

...but that is how the American people arrived at their majority-opposition to the Iraq war, for example.

But you will convince no one - especially centrists - of your position on any given issue by prefacing the conversation with terms like "sellout."

[Armstead]

56. This may sound rigid but...

I believe that allowing the geometric series of corporate mergers and takeovers of the last 30 years is a sell out of the first degree, for example.

We can debate over the specific ways that it could have been stopped (or still could be stopped). But the plain fact of the mattrer is that it is bad to allow, for example, 300 regional and local banks to become consolidated into one huge mega bank. And it is a sell out to allow that to happen on a scale where the entire economy is so dominated by a tiny handful of mega banks.

It's the same in most other industries. The only people who benefit cvrom that are the tiny sliver of elites at the top. Everyone else gets screwed -- as does the principles of democracy.

The fact that so many so-called Democrats allowdd that to happen over several decades with nary a peep of criticism or opposition is a sell out of the first degree. Now, the results are hitting home to everyone as the chickens come home to roost.

That is less of a left/right issue than one of simple common sense.

[wyldwolf]

60. you can't blame that on centrists, though

Centrists ceased to be the power-players in Congress in 1972 - at least on the Democratic side.

[Armstead]

63. Too few spoke out against the Corporate Conventional Wisdom

I witnessed with mounting frustration the acquiescense of the Democrats to that process as it was happening for too many years.

I remember thinking why aren't the Democrats challenging all of this bullshit? Why are they allowing Corporate CONservatives to get away with these lies and distortions?

Unfortunately, the same thing is happening today. There have been several mergers, for example, in which ownership in health insurance has become less competative in the past few years. But is it made a major political issue? Nope.

That frustration is at the root of why I am so against the kind of Democrats who sttod by and echoed the corporate wisdom. Or -- worse yet -- allowed us to become unnecessarily fatalistic about it through silence or tacit endorsement of these trends in a "Nothing we can do to change it" way.

[wyldwolf]

64. then your problem is with ...

..the post McGovern Democrats of the 70s and 80s (the ones who came to power after McGovern's party reform efforts.)

Centrists haven't held considerable power in Congress since LBJ's time.

[Armstead]

67. The Centrists were anti-reformers

The centrists are the result of those who resisted reforms of the party.

There was a big struggle for the soul of the party in the 70's and 80's, and the centrists won. The liberals maybe won the social issues eventually, but on the real issues of wealth and power, the ones who took over the party were the corporate enablers.

[wyldwolf]

81. no, the centrists lost - at least at the House level

...which is why Congress had such a chilly relationship with Carter. I swear, the left and their historical revisionism. One day they claim they kicked out the centrists and the next day, it never happened!

the ones who took over the party were the corporate enablers.

God, that line is getting old. HOW did the almost non-existent congressional centrists enable corporations in the 70s?

[Armstead]

82. In the 80's and 90's they allowed the issue to be buried

Even if they couldn't win by the numbers, the Democrats should have pounded on this issue like a hammer pounds a nail.

It was too importrant to let stay buried and tom let the corporate GOP lies go unchallenged.

But the Democrats were afraid of looking "too liberal" and they decided to jump into the same corporate bedroom.

I know it's getting old. But unfortunately it's still going on and it's still being buried as an issue by too many Democrats.

[wyldwolf]

83. you didn't tell me how

[Armstead]

84. Silence and agreement

Every time one of those mergers was announced, I kept hoping the Democrats would at least say something. But nothing. Stone cold silence. Or some wimpy "Well it's not a good thing but nothing can be dome."

How the hell do you think the GOP got so many people to buy into that stuff? Because for so many years, Democrats were not fighting the real fight on the economic front.

Oh wait. When Clinton came in he fought. He fought the unions to shove Corporate Globalization down our throat.

And the centraist Dems joined in the chorus in praise of Any Rand/Milton Friedman accolyte Alan Greenspan and his elitist ultra right-wing economic policies.

And when the more liberal and progressive Democrats tried to raise the alarm bells during this time, the centists said "Quiet. You don;t matter."

Sorry but the centrist Democreats helped to help build the current House of Cards that America has become by their silent acceptance of economic policies that have turned out to be disasterous and a threat to democracy.

[wyldwolf]

85. silence and agreement to what?

Specific legislation. Specific votes. Specific congressman. How.

[Armstead]

89. Almost every time these monopolistic mergers were announced

When, for example, the nation's 4th and 5th largest banks announce a merger -- after already absorbing many banks individually -- one would expect some politicians top raise a ruckus.

But they didn't. It was a standard pattern in the 80's and 90's -- and remains so up to this day.

(Note:I don't put every Democratic politician in that category. The progressive Democrats have raised these concerns., But they were marginalized and ignored and dismissed by the Centrist Establishment.)

I haven't the time to go back and look up every merger of the last 30 years. You can do it, if you want specifics.

If you don't recognize the problem, then it's worth educating yourself about it. I say that in the spirit of my original post. Please look up the problem of mergers and acquisions that have led to monopolistic situations over the last 30 years. And look for how the majority of Democratic politicians responded over the years.

If, after that you can say that it's been okay to ignore the immense concentration of power, and the negative results, then we'lkl simply have to agree to disagree.

[wyldwolf]

90. If you can't give specifics, you argument amounts to "truthiness."

You FEEL it is correct. But the facts are lacking.

The progressive Democrats have raised these concerns., But they were marginalized and ignored and dismissed by the Centrist Establishment.

Truthiness. There was no centrist establishment in the 70s and 80s (that is why the DLC was formed.)

I haven't the time to go back and look up every merger of the last 30 years. You can do it, if you want specifics.

You would also have to establish how said mergers were harmful - but since you refuse to provide a single itty bitty bit of evidence - it is "truthiness."

[Armstead]

92. You can look for the information or deny it with your own "truthiness"

That choice is yours. I have often brought specifics up on DU, and I haven't the time now to repeat that exercise.

If I get a chance I will post some places you can find out more info.

But in the meantime there's plenty of specifics available, and plenty of places that reflect what I'm saying. It is worth looking into it, if you really want to understand why so many people like me are so angry about it -- and so worried about the results of it.

If after that, you still disagree that it's a problem, I'd be happy to discuss this issue in more detail on other threads. But I'm not going to get into a nyah, nyah battle of "truthiness" with you.

The choice is yours, whether you want to understand why poeple have this position, or if you prefer to just dismiss it as the ravings of "leftist" malcontents.

[wyldwolf]

93. you have not given any information to look at

have often brought specifics up on DU, and I haven't the time now to repeat that exercise.

If I get a chance I will post some places you can find out more info.

If you have time to post some places for the info, surely you have time to post the specifics you claim to have posted on DU before.

Why does trying to get someone to prove what they're saying amount to a nyah, nyah battle with you?

The choice is yours, whether you want to understand why poeple have this position, or if you prefer to just dismiss it as the ravings of "leftist" malcontents.

If these "leftist malcontents" would ever post statistics and documented facts to prop up their positions on this, they might not be dismissed.

See, that is why centrism lacks the echo chambers of the right and left. We won't take someone's word for something that sounds, on its surface, to be the rantings of a wannabe-revolutionary.

[Armstead]

94. All right, here's a start

I quickly found a few links that illustrate what I'm talking about. There's much more, but it's up to you to do some homework on your own, if you care to think about these things.



http://www.tompaine.com/search/index.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=monopolies&x=22&y=7

Media Monopolies
http://www.corporations.org/media/


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010108/20001226
Written in 2000, Before Bush took office

http://www.thenation.com/doc/19991206/borosage
Written in 1999, regarding the Global Economy and Clinton's support for it

[wyldwolf]

97. ok

First link (TomPaine) is a search page result. No hard data there. I won't do the research for you to prove your point.

Second link - Corporations.org. We see the biggest drop occured between 1983 and 1987, the period of time the Republicans had control of the US Senate and the White House, and the remnants of the McGovern liberals ruled the House.

The second biggest drop was between '87 and '92 - the Bush I years.

Taken together, they do nothing to bolster your "centrist 70s and 80s" claim.

The Robert Sheer editorial is interesting in that not only would you expect him to take a slanted viewpoint, it actually again refutes your claims (both the 70s and 80s time period claim and the "centrist Democrats" claim) and offers no statistics.

1. Was the California legislature centrist Democrats? Of course not. Is the California legislature the same thing as the United States Congress, which is the focus of our discussion? No, again. Did this action happen in the 70s and 80s? No.

2. The deregulation of the Telecom industry, credited by this article to the US Congress, also happened in 1996. Who controlled congress by a large margin in 1996? It wasn't Democrats - centist or otherwise. Nor did it happen in the 70s and 80s.

The last article has little to do with the topic of our discussion.

But here are a few things on the real topic of our discussion - Democrats and deregulation in the 70s and 80s - you might find interesting.

Ted Kennedy championed deregulation of the airlines in the 1970s. This directly led to deregulation of trucking, natural gas, electric power, telecommunications, banking, and railroads.

A coalition of liberal congressmen and Gerald Ford set banking deregulation in motion.

[Armstead]

98. Okayyy

I think you're just being contrary to be contrary. The issue is Democrats and deregulation from the 1970's to TODAY! And not just "centrist" Democrats, but any Democrats who allowed this to happen with nary a peep of protest, even as the destructive results became more and more obvious.

The Democrats were big champions of deregulation and privatization from then to now. Not as bad as the GOP, but bad nonetheless. Early on, in the 70's it might have sounded like a good idea, because the bureaucracy had gotten a little overblown and the economy was in the tank. In that context, Ted Kennedy's support for Airline deregulation is understandable.

But the baby got thrown out with the bathwater. Times change, and people should learn from experience. Airline deregulation opened the door to much, much bigger and more destructive forms of deregulation and privatization that followed. It's called the slippery slope, and the Democratic leadership slid down it along with the GOP.

Any liberals who supported banking deregulation were misguided. I care less about labels than about the results. In fact, that bolsters my case. Many people (myself included) got so angry and frustrated at the majority of Democrats being AWOL on the whole issue of Corporate Power for so long. Doesn't matter whether they had the "liberal" tag or not.

(And, before you accuse me of simple Dem bashing, I emphasize that I am not including those Democrats who did stand up against this stuff. But they faced an uphill battle within their own party, which is the shameful aspect of it. They were called "too far left" and "naive" by other Democrats. Most of the arguments against Corporate Consolidation have proven to be all too true.)

I deliberatly linked to that Tom Paine search page because it has numerous articles.


2)Telcom Regulation and Consolidation was going on for about 20 years before 1996. The 1996 "reforms" were not seen by people who actually paid attention as the "beginning" of media deregulation and consolidation -- More like the last straw. Clinton's token efforts to "tweak it" despite it's obvious fundamental dangers is a perfect example of avoiding the real issues and abandonoing the public interest. Even if it was likely to go through a GOP Congress, the silence of the majority of Democrats on the whole issue of Media Consolidation was shameful and self-defeating. We're paying the price for that now.

The Battle in Seattle has everything to do with what I'm talking about. It's the result of Clinton and the Centrist Democrats pushing through an agenda that expanded corporate power to a global level. That's just an extension of what was going on within the US.

[wyldwolf]

99. you're suddenly changing your tune?

You're suddenly saying its about Democrats from the 70s 'til today when in post 67, you said: "There was a big struggle for the soul of the party in the 70's and 80's, and the centrists won. The liberals maybe won the social issues eventually, but on the real issues of wealth and power, the ones who took over the party were the corporate enablers."

...and then you get back to your "its this way 'cause I say so" routine.

It really get kind of tedious, this centrists as corporate enablers song and dance. But upon careful examination of the facts, we see the label isn't deserved.

[Armstead]

101. How is that being contradictory?

I never have raised a criticism of the Democrats on some social issues like reproductive choice.

I'm talking about the real meat and potatoes issues of Money and Power.

It's not because "I say so." I'm just one of many, many people whose frustration level with Do-Nothing Democrats grew over the last 30 years.

This is not something new. It's the cumulative result of a lot of things over the years.

[wyldwolf]

102. Our conversation began with your criticism of centrists... now...

... it's "do nothing nothing Democrats" without regard of ideology. The fact is you unfairly labled centrist Democrats and, electorally speaking, the charge against them was wrong.

[Armstead]

100. You want heavy duty details?

Read William Greider, a reporter who has been coivering this stuff for years. Facts figures, the big picture, examples, implications. The whole Shebang.

If you read some of this with an open mind you might get some of the context of this. Maybe you won;t agree with him, but you can;t say it's just shallow opinionizing.


http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/william_greider

[wyldwolf]

103. does he show that centrist democrats are "corporate enablers?"

...the link looks like a bio to me.

[Armstead]

104. Read him and decide for yourself

If you can;t bother to click the link and see that the page is filled with articles...welll.

[wyldwolf]

105. no thank you. And I hope if I ever need a lawyer..

..he doesn't say to the jury, "Is my client innocent? Well... find out for yourself... here, here's a whole box of files for you to go through.... if you can't be bothered to go through the files... welll..."

[Armstead]

106. That's the lamest reply yet

You wanted information, I gave you information. Now you don't want to bother looking at it?

God forbid you might actually look into why so many people believe a certain way. God forbid you might actually find the basis for some kind of discussion aimed towards common ground.

Head, meet brick wall. :banghead:

[wyldwolf]

107. the lame thing is making a claim then expecting someone else to confirm it

You gave me a bio with multiple links then told me to dig for the information that proves your claim.

No thanks!

[Armstead]

109. That's the kind of response I've had from Freepers in the past

"Prove it"

"Okay here's some information."

"No, prove it yourself."

Sorry but I'm not omniscent. Like evberyone else I have to rely on sources of information.

I feel like I wasted abolut 45 minutes in good faith trying to provide you with some food for thought. at your request....Didn't realize you were going to act like as toddler who refuses to eat the food in front of them.

[wyldwolf]

113. and yours are the kind of tactics I've gotten from Freepers in the past

"Prove it."

"No..."

"Prove it"

"no"

"Prove it"

"ok, here's the internet. Its in there somewhere..."

[Moochy]

116. being contrary to be contrary.

Or just being Wyldwolf.

OT: Anyone remember that Patton Oswalt bit, about Heavy Metal?

Jackyl with a 'y'!!!

[The2ndWheel]

21. People are different

That's the problem with having a 1.5 party system.

Also, a social structure that includes 300 million people just doesn't lend itself to actual representation. That's why institutions have become(or at least increased in value) more important than actual air breathing life.

Good luck trying to change the system. Or keeping the status quo. Only large scale entities have the power to do that.

[Armstead]

28. Decentralization can help

There has been a long-time movement to promote more decentralization. It's basically a synthesis of progressives and true conservatives, who recognize that power and money should be more dispersed among communities and the grass roots.

It's not utopian, because most people who believe in that recognize that big institutions have an important role too. But they believe in restoring a balance by promoting more activity on the local level.

That's one possible strategy to move away from the polarixation that becomes inevitable when things rely too much on big institutions.

For an example of thast Google the E.F. Schumacher Society website.

[The2ndWheel]

47. Very true

The only problem is that the general trend of human history is of centralization. I don't see why that would stop, until we run out of the energy required to fight off entropy. To keep that order, we will exhaust any and all resources.

Also, I don't think you could get rid of polarization or cooperation. Everything has to co-exist with its opposite. The closer you get to 100% on either side of the scale, the more likely it is that things will even out, one way or another.

[Armstead]

52. It has been done before -- Takes a conscious effort though

The US actually did make progress in that in the early and middle 20th Century, as a reaction against the concentration of wealth and power of the Gilded Age.

Whike it obviously didn't stop it completely or forever, it did show that a conscious effort could slow and reverse the trend.

What happened, IMO, is that after the 1970's the forces of consolidation fought back again. And our side lost the nerve or inclination to fight back with equal vigor. As a result, the gains of the 20th Century were lost and we backslid....And we're seeing the results now.

But two important points to remember. The forces that led to the reversal of the Monopolists and Robber Barons before were not just from the left. Teddy Roosevelt, for example, was hardly what today would be called a bleeding heart liberal. Much of the impetus of the Liberal Decades was because many capitalists realized the need for reform too.

We need that same kind of broadly-based resurgance of a collective desire to restore some sanity and balance to the system. I think it's possible to advance that without being diverted by the phony aspects of polarization that are a sideshow to the core issues of wealth and power.

[Hosnon]

29. I think there is something to the idea that a properly functioning

democracy will be nothing BUT centrist.

If half of the country wants one end of a spectrum and the other half wants the other end, the middle is quite possibly the only viable policy.

However, there are, of course, HUGE underpinnings to this, including: (1) What the spectrum is and how it is defined and (2) Assumption that no one is artificially shifting the spectrum so that the 'middle' is not the actual middle.

There is also the question of truth. If half of the population is ignorant (}( ) and the other half is knowledgable, should democracy sacrifice truth for compromise or should the ignorant be forced to follow the knowledgable?

[Armstead]

32. You nailed it with "artificially shifted"

That's basically what has happened. The definition of the center has been changed from inclusive (which it should be) to one that represents a narrow set of interests and is artificially placed on the right hand side of the overall spectrum.

A true "center" should be diverse, because it would be a synthesis of left and right. But it is a false center if one or the other is too dominant and is able to define the terms.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. It's a matter of picking one's battles and differentiating

"what I want" from "what's good for the country as a whole."

That's why I believe that Dems should take behavioral issues off the table, not because they're unimportant--they're VERY important to large numbers of people--but discussing them makes people crazy. I've lived long enough to have seen previously unimaginable changes in American society, both good and bad. Some of them have happened without much legislative support, such as more rights for the GLBT population. Even twenty-five years ago, it would have been unthinkable to have an "out" gay celebrity in mainstream entertainment.

In some cases, insistence on certain behavioral issues has created opportunities for the right wing to whip people into a frenzy, where they weren't frenzied before. I'm thinking specifically of guns. When I was growing up, the ideal of the Minnesota state legislature approving a concealed carry law would have been beyond anyone's imagination, even though hunting was so common that some school districts closed the Friday before hunting season started. There were no "gun nuts," and my high school history teacher, an avid hunter, who had deer carcasses hanging in his front yard every fall, said that he couldn't think of any good reason to own a pistol. I never heard anyone claim a Constitutional right to own a private arsenal until the anti-gun lobby gained strength.

On the abortion issue, abortion laws were being liberalized state by state at the time of the Supreme Court decision, which forced relaxed abortion laws on states that simply were not ready for the idea. That's when Minnesota, with its large population of rural Catholics, started to have pitched battles over abortion within the DFL, and when the fundie Republicans began to gain strength. There are still areas of the state where people come right out and say that they are single-issue voters, that single issue being abortion. They would probably vote for Nicolae Ceausescu because he banned abortion. (And I know from lengthy discussions on DU that there are also single-issue voters on the other side, who would vote for Mao Zedong because he allowed abortion.)

In my ideal political world, the Democrats would declare a moratorium on behavioral issues and allow a little social evolution to take place, because that's where the Republicans get most of their following, on people whose emotions have been inflamed by hot button issues. If they had to campaign on how much they have improved people's lives, they'd never get anywhere.

If I were national Democratic strategist, I'd send agents out into communities across the country and of every economic status to wherever people gather--coffee shops, community festivals, church coffee hours, parks, bars, high school football games, riding public transit, wherever--to find out what economic and political issues were on their minds. My guess is that self-identified Republicans and Democrats alike would be worried about health care, job security, the high cost of education, the way they never see any benefit from their taxes, the lack of affordable daycare, and the lack of affordable housing, among others.

I would then devise a populist party platform that ALL Democrats across the country would have to run on or else lose their funding. This platform would consist of four or five propositions, each explained in specific (no vague platitudes) but simple language (no policy wonk jargon). Every Dem candidate from city council on up to president would run on these four or five ideas, although individuals would be free to add their own platform planks to suit local conditions. This would effectively counter the Republican accusation that "the Democrats have no ideas."

I differ with ACK in that I think the endless gravy train for the Pentagon has got to stop, because it is crippling our economy, and that it can stop if the situation is properly explained. Start with Reagan's quote that goes something like, "You can't solve a problem just by throwing money at it." Use some colorful analogies, like taking a sledgehammer to kill mosquitos. Use (is it Ben or Jerry?)'s piles of Oreos to illustrate the differences in military spending among countries. Point out the necessity of preparing the country to defend itself against enemies that exist as opposed to wasting money on weapons system to fight enemies that used to exist. Avoid pissing the world off.

I've read that while Scandinavians don't necessarily like high taxes, they can easily see the benefits they get from them: health care, no tuition at their universities, subsidies for child rearing, an excellent infrastructure, and generous pensions for the elderly and disabled. We Americans on the other hand, pay taxes while our country deteriorates visibly, and the public needs to be informed that it's paying all but 15% of its federal income taxes to subsidize the Pentagon and pay the interest on the national debt, most of which is due to Reagan's insane military buildup.

The American people need to be informed of the real choice: either be the guy in the nice well-kept house with a healthy family who has a simple burglar alarm or be the guy in the tumbledown shack with ragged, dirty children who has barbed wire, Rottweilers, booby traps, and a private arsenal in the basement.

But I'm rambling. To sum up:

1) Emphasize political and economic issues. If strategists have done their homework, by actually venturing out of the Beltway and asking real people what they need, they will pick the right issues, and those issues will strike a chord with the voters.

2) Lay off behavioral issues for the time being. If the Repubicanites try to draw candidates into discussions of hot button issues, the Democrats should simply say, "Look, I've got more important things to talk about" and go back to their four or five basic issues. Success with the political and social issues will inevitably defuse the hot button issues. I'm convinced that a lot of the fanaticism about abortion, anti-gay feelings, or guns comes from people wanting to control something in lives that feel out of control.

3) Use the campaigns to inoculate voters against Republicanite nonsense, such as "we need a strong defense" or "taxes are evil."

[Armstead]

41. As usual I'm in agreement with you

Part of it boils down to this.

The more the focus is placed on real life ecoinomic and political issues that affect real people, the better off we are. But when there is very little competition between actual positions on real issues, the peripheral nonsense like personalities and lifestyle become a smokescreen. That cycles also leads to MORE division rather than less.

[omega minimo]

43. Which is why when you get past obsessing over labels

and work on finding common economic ground and shared "real issues" like defending the Constitution, as the smoke screen clears away, all these "just folk" on the same "side" are facing down corporate power. Together.

[Armstead]

46. Without going into personal information too much....

my whole career has basically been oriented to doing that. Putting progressive and liberal ideas and information into a context that the "mainstream" can relate to -- in very specific ways (not theoretical speculation or philosophical agonizing).

And in my own little pond, I've been rather successful at it, if I do say so myself.

[omega minimo]

50. Maybe you've worked yourself into your own little middle

where you post from, looking at both "sides" and calling attention to the differences, instead of the common ground?

[Armstead]

53. Nah. I just like tio navel gaze on DU.

Au contrare to your assumption, I am constantly being complimented by people on all sides of the spectrum for my ability to inject fresh perspectives into the mainstream and to explain issues in very clear terms that most people can relate to. In my way, I've contributed to creating a climate in which people of many different stripes can support ideas that nationally would be considered "radical"...(I'm not thumping my chest. Just responding to your characterization.)

As for my own little middle. Every single person is their own little "middle." That's part of the human condition. Newt Gingrich assumes he represents the majority center, as does Bernie Sanders.

IMO it's necessary to recognize both one's own "idealized" beliefs and the diverse nature of reality. What would one truly like to see if they could determine reality as compared to what can be done that reflects that but in terms of the real world.

As individuals it's also necessary to reconcile our own inner contradictions. Although my basic instincts and specific opinions are liberal/progressive, I actually agree with conservatives on a lot of things.

On a collective basis, we need to examine these thinghs too, both on the "left" half of the spectrum and as a nation. How many good ideas do "conservatives" resist simply because they have been associated with "liberals" for example? And probably vice versa.

So it's important to examine labels in oder top move beyond them, IMO.

Plus DU is a discussion board, which is one venue for thinking out loud with others.

[omega minimo]

59. That's fine. You're great. Not meant to mischaracterize.

You tend to present these dilemma-like "navel-gazing" threads and where do they go? Do we learn and move on and work to find that common ground?

It seems like your perception of the dilemma has progressed over time, but it's often a dichotomy, with you in the middle reexamining the "sides."

Just sayin'. :hi:

And if you (and others) here are using labels that you don't really believe in........................

:shrug:


I appreciate the importance of the outside work you say you do. Do you function the same here at DU, or is it "navel-gazing"?


We need to find that common ground. And fast. :grouphug:

[Armstead]

62. I'm just a Yankee contrarian by nature.

I believe ideas come out of debate -- even among people who basically agree. Nothing should be taken for granted, including one's own beliefs. I believe that's how we grow, both individually and as collective movements.

That's one reason I like to question sacred cows on either side.

IMO, our side (the "left half") glosswed over our internal differences for too many years. As a result we calcified into smaller segments, and lost that sense of common purpose. I think the same thing happened to the nation as a whole....That's why IMO things have become so polarized now.

But I'm also just a questioning cuss by nature. :)

[omega minimo]

66. Maybe you know what you think the answers are and are playing

:evilfrown:'s Advocate?

"That's one reason I like to question sacred cows on either side."

If you start from a position of propping up your chosen "sacred cows" and invite people to tug-of-war over them.............
.......................
............


It'd be interesting to hear your positions on the solutions up front :applause:

[Armstead]

68. Paul Wellstone, Bernie Sanders,

I'll admit that I do like to play devil's advocate. It's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it. }(

I also do believe in questioning one's own beliefs -- and those of the ideology I primarily support.

But if you want to know what I truly think on a gut level in political terms, people like Sanders and Wellstone embody the template of what I believe.

Both of them have (had) staunch liberal/porogressive principles. But they are (were) also were able to relate them to the voters in a way that even those of different ideologies respected them...and even voted for them. They also are (were) firm but polite.

If people like them were the majority of Democrats, we'd wipe the floor with the GOP.

That's the straight skinny on what I believe, when I put my horns away.

[omega minimo]

70. Wonderful

I propose that those in the Hartmann/Sandersesque "Radical Middle," who can relate to Hartmann's other cogent (and funny) slogans, start speaking that language here and emulate those inspiring folks. "Promoting a rapid and radical return to the values that made America Great!"

And quit fussin and fightin (and wasting time) so much. Your excellent thread has all the dots. Let's connect 'em.

:bounce::woohoo::bounce:




edit: it would be great to hear more from the voices that ACK brought up, that may feel marginalized on DU.............

[blm]

61. Very well stated, LL.

I agree that those voters who THINK they oppose Democrats should be engaged more practically - and talked to where they can be found in their everyday lives.

Your post deserves its own thread, just in case it gets missed down here.

[bling bling]

112. Wow Lydia.

You really ought to be at a table brainstorming with the Dems. They could benefit greatly from listening to what you have to say here.

Very, very good post. I wish I could recommend it.

[Armstead]

115. She's usually spot on

[PVnRT]

127. That was pure beauty

Well said.

[Jack Rabbit]

55. Thank you. I've been trying to do that here for five years

Just tell the truth. Don't try to push an agenda before stating the facts. State the facts first, then interpret them.

And recognize nuance and moral ambiguity. The real world is not well suited to a moral toggle switch.

[Armstead]

58. That's a good way to put it

much more succinctly than I did.

[welshTerrier2]

65. thanks for your thoughtful post ... you've asked the perfect questions

here's my take on all this ...

first, where are we today ... i'll focus only on the Democratic Party in my response ... what i see, is a rather significant divide between, and i'll stick to the unfortunate labels solely for convenience, the DLC-wing versus the "real" progressives ... i have struggled with balancing the strength to be gained from party unity with the belief i have that the "left" has NO VOICE at all inside the party ...

duality is the perfect term for it ... so, what's a poor lefty to do?

ideally, we would nurture intra-party processes that could lead to meaningful dialog and exchanges and meaningful compromise on selected issues ... for roughly the past year, i've put great emphasis on "improving intra-party communication" ... i've been highly critical of Chairman Dean because i saw it as his responsibility to bring about a process of "town meetings" so that every single Democrat could have their voice heard and could get a real chance to speak directly to the Democratic leadership, or their Democratic reps and senators, in a free, public forum ... i argued these town meetings should occur regularly and that the party should define itself and its platform and values based on these exchanges ...

but, as the saying goes, a funny thing happened on the way to the "forum" ... first, we had Mr. Lieberman run against the nominee of his former party ... and more recently, we've been told that DLC CEO Al From has been cozying up to republican Mayor Bloomfield and talking to him about running for president as an independent in 2008 ...

maybe these incidents are minor and perhaps unrelated and maybe not ... maybe the DLC wing of the party sees the newfound energy coming from the left and realizes their days in control of the Democratic Party are numbered ... speculative? perhaps ...

but, if what we're seeing is an exodus from the party, not from the left but from the center, perhaps compromise is no longer possible ... perhaps those i had hoped to convince to "share power" are really not at all interested in sharing anything ...

the OP asked: "The question is how to reconcile these two competing beliefs? and polarization? Are there solutions to issues that all sides could agree on, or at least find compromises? Or does it have to be either/or?"

it's very hard to compromise on "core values" ... it's much easier to seek common ground on timing and tactics ... for example, let's say the left argues the war in Iraq is unjustified and should be ended immediately ... if the conservative wing of the party argues that the war is a just war and that the US holds the "moral highground", i'm very skeptical that a compromise can be found ... HOWEVER, let's say the conservative wing of the party believes a "hasty withdrawal" would put both Americans and Iraqis at severe risk but that little, if anything, will be gained from continuing the occupation ... now there can be a basis for compromise ...

negotiations might include discussions about setting a date certain ... they might include discussions about publically stating that corporations are making billions on the war and that investigations into war profiteering should take place ... strong statements condemning war profiteering would tend to bridge some of the differences between left and right within the party ... demanding a clear accounting of exactly what measurable progress, if any, is being made is yet another point on which we would likely agree ... the point is, that even if we disagree about how long to stay, strong, clear statements denouncing the corporate exploitation of this war would develop more trust between left and right ...

of course, kissing mr. bush and embracing all the wonderful things this war has brought to the American people, the Iraqi people and the cause of world peace leaves virtually no room for intra-party dialog ... when conservatives like Lieberman do that, i'm afraid it's time for someone to leave the party and that compromise becomes impossible ...

in the end, compromise and unity should be valued ... if we are divided, we are far weaker ... but we should not choose unity regardless of the circumstances ... sometimes, to have a unified party requires some serious housecleaning ... i'm afraid that's about where we've arrived ...

[Armstead]

69. Or....We all get back to first principles

As for Democrats and the left and center, I think it's high time our side got back to First Principles. By that, I mean define a strong and clear set of basic liberal goals on the important core issues of money and power.

The devil is always in the details, of course. But the main thing, IMO, is to go back to rowing in the same direction, rather than having different factions rowing in opoposite directions. The compromise would come in extent and pace, but at least there would be a common underlying purpose.

I posted abut a speech Ann Richards gave at the 1988 Democratic convention that was shown on CSpan on Sunday. I was blown away, becase she perfectly articulated exactly what liberalism stands for -- and what Republicans stand for.

I believe if Democrats today could agree on and articulate those issues in the same way she did -- and mean it -- it would be the basis of a platform most Democrats and many indeendents could rally behind, from more progressive types to more moderate Democrats.

If the people like the corporate centrists who think that's too far "left" don't agree, they're welcome to become Republicans or do their own version of the Green Partyt as far as I'm concerned. I think the Democrats could offset that by gaining others.

[blm]

71. I predicted the centrists in America would eventually do what Israel's

centrists did and form a new party. As soon as I heard what Israeli centrists did, I knew - just knew - there was going to be something similar going on in America.

And it has started.

[Armstead]

72. Does that mean Bloomberg becomesthe new Nader?

That'll be an interesting switcheroo, if the centrists become the spoilers.

Nader flamefests in reverse.

[blm]

76. Bloomberg, Lieberman, alot of centrist GOPs and Dems. And wouldn't be

surprised, if Clintons feel they lost control of the Dem party, that they lead the new party.

[welshTerrier2]

79. did you see this post?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2830950

i think there's a very real possibility this could happen in some form even as early as 2008 ...

[blm]

80. No - I hadn't seen it. Thanks.

Falls right in with what I felt last year. Lieberman being challenged and losing really was key. And remember - Clinton campaigned for Lieberman, so they are sympatico.

It was last year when I smelled this coming - read this article and you'll see why - the writer saw exactly what I did. They know they'll win - and media will make SURE of it.

The only chance we have is if guys like Gore and Kerry join together to fight them, and spill the beans where necessary.

http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/11/amazing_doings.php

[Mike03]

73. Great Post.

There was another thread by Cali that hinted at the same question albeit in a different context. I really struggle with this because I care deeply about politics but lack the ability to immerse myself in it without having very strong, often negative emotions about those who oppose me. I read a lot of Eastern Philosophy that argues that politics is sort of like a poisoned pool, and that there is some way to transcend actually getting into the pool. Once you get in and take a point of view, by definition you've created polarities and duality becomes manifest. There is some way to do this because great leaders of the past and hopefully future have and will do this, but I've not yet been able to find that place. Will be interested to read the comments of others.

Thanks again for this post.

[geek tragedy]

74. There are two kinds of centrists/moderates in this world my friend:

1) Those who are essentially non-ideological, pragmatic, and rational; and

2) those that cravenly triangulate in the belief that the middle ground is always the most righteous.

[Armstead]

77. I would add a third category

3)Those who are ideological but also pragmatic and rational.

That IMO is the "Golden mean."

[geek tragedy]

78. Well, everyone is ideological to a certain degree. I meant

that they are rational in that they are willing to let facts on the ground trump previously held ideological beliefs, i.e. they are willing to reexamine their reasoning.

[omega minimo]

88. THAT IS CALLED THE CONSTITUTION

"ideological but also pragmatic and rational"


Let's start there.

[Mike03]

75. One Divisive Weapon

Just another thought: So many times when someone expresses the opinion "A", they are accused of believing the (non-sequitor) "B." For example, if you oppose the war in Iraq, you are aiding and abetting al Queda. This is an extreme form of labeling and categorization that many people naturally find intimidating, and it probably leads people to develop a fear of taking positions.

We even do it to each other here on DU, which is something that saddens me a bit.

And I don't believe this is really a failure of analytical reasoning, but a concerted effort to manipulate an individual into fear of taking a (sometimes unpopular or misunderstood) position on a topic.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

86. There is one issue that I won't compromise on:

Egalitarianism

Unfortunately?, that encompasses virtually every issue of our time. E.g.:

Torture
Corpo-oligopoly
Taxation
Civil Rights
Justice
etc...


All (Wo)Men Are Created Equal

[ulysses]

87. compromise is indeed necessary, but it requires

an opponent who is willing to compromise with you. Lacking that, we cut our own throats in the well-intentioned attempt. "If you'll stop stabbing me, I'll hit myself in the head repeatedly with this ball peen hammer for your amusement." That's what's passed as Democratic compromise for a good while now.

Compromise, sure...once those in charge of the GOP see the value in it as well.

[Armstead]

91. You're right -- But it becomes a spiral

In my original post, I was partially looking at it in a non-partisan sense of what's good and bad for the country.

I think we're all locked in a cycle of escalating polarization. One side digs in, the other side is forced to dig in, the first side digs inb further...etc. And along the way, both sides get more alienated and angry at each otehr, which fueld the cycle, etc.

What I'm wondering is if there is a way to stand our ground, but also attempt to defuse this cycle.

After all, I think the majority of Americans don't want to play that game. They want answers and tangible solutions. But they become more estranged from politics and issues the more it somply looks like a blood sport. They often wind up saying "A pox on both their houses" and turn on American Idol, where at least they can see the results of their vote.

Thus the question -- in the context of the country -- is if there's a way to stand up to the GOP/Corporate CONservatives without just fueling the gridlock that results from ultra-polarized politics. :shrug:

[omega minimo]

95. The answer to your OP question is Thom Hartmann

:thumbsup:


If you get an answer to your navelgazing you may have to stop playing :evilgrin:'s advocate.


Now, how bout hookin up them dots?


:bounce: :hi:

[Armstead]

96. I got the dots hooked -- But I won;t give up my navel gazing

After all, it's the second most popular pastime people engage in at DU -- second only to flame fests. :popcorn:

(Maybe it's the third most popular. DU Lounge flirting may be the second.)

[omega minimo]

108. Flame, Flirt, Navel ................... ....................

I mean hook up the dot HERE at DU


:yoiks:

[Armstead]

110. Read my little exchange with WyldWolf above.

I may not hazve been successful, but you can't say I wasn't at least TRYING to connect some dots.

[omega minimo]

111. I was just noticing that pancake stack of posts you had going.

I read the whole thread last night :thumbsup:

There was a fly in his ointment early on-- a fallacious assumption that underlies everything else........ hard (for either of you) to get past.

Was gonna comment but I read the whole thread last night :thumbsup:

[wyldwolf]

114. and that fallacious assumption was what?

[omega minimo]

117. Fallacies

1. "Conservatives shout “private good, public bad.” Liberals shout “public good, private bad.” "



2. "By contrast, the centrist movement can show politicians how to use both the private and public sectors (often in combination) to creatively solve problems that we would otherwise just shout about."



3. "But an ideologue is stringent. They call for lock-step agreement or else be labeled "DINO" and "RINO." An ideologue is more concerned with ideological purity than progress. Most leftwingers and rightwingers are ideologues."






FWIW
Despite your unfamiliarity with the corporate and media consolidation of the past decades-- and the damage from it -- Armstead put this quite well:

" Telcom Regulation and Consolidation was going on for about 20 years before 1996. The 1996 "reforms" were not seen by people who actually paid attention as the "beginning" of media deregulation and consolidation -- More like the last straw. Clinton's token efforts to "tweak it" despite it's obvious fundamental dangers is a perfect example of avoiding the real issues and abandonoing the public interest. Even if it was likely to go through a GOP Congress, the silence of the majority of Democrats on the whole issue of Media Consolidation was shameful and self-defeating. We're paying the price for that now."

[wyldwolf]

118. not fallacies

... demonstrated daily on both DU and places like Free Republic.

But, of course, you're not as good at repeating the "Pendejo the Revolutionary" rhetoric as Armstead is.

[omega minimo]

119. Did not Did too Did not Did too Did not Did too Did not Did too

:spray:


Some of your fallacies sound scripted from elsewhere. Be careful what you pick up at "places like Free Republic."




"But, Of Course, You're Not As Good" At The Repetitve Nonsensical Ol' Switcheroo As XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX is.

[wyldwolf]

120. a fine example of my point, and so quick, too!

[omega minimo]

121. I Know You Are But What Am I?

:rofl:


Oh please. Your point is to toy with posters and watch them twist in the wind trying to meet your demands (which never QUITE make it, do they?) At any point above, you could have tried to have a discussion with Armstead, instead of playing topdog bs.

I'll bet even you forgot what your point was.

Good luck on the internets. :hi:

[wyldwolf]

122. and the hits just keep on coming!

[omega minimo]

123. Thank you. Let's kick Armstead's thread again

[Armstead]

124. Centrists seldom defend centrism -- They just attack liberals.

I'm annoyed at myself for wasting time I didn't have in trying to get a basis of an actual exchange of ideas with la wolf in that sub-thread above.

If centrists and conservatives (same difference) would actually try to explain WHY they think it is good to reduce the number of competing companies in an industry from 100 competitors to 3 monopoilies through mergers and aquisitions, I could at least respect that as a valid difference of opinion. And maybe as a basis for finding common ground and compromise, as referred to in my OP.

But the standard line seems to be "No you radical leftists" (i.e. liberals) are wrong. You're just anti business." No ideas. Just empty calories.

[omega minimo]

125. Yes, it would be helpful if he actually said something

"If centrists and conservatives (same difference) would actually try to explain WHY they think it is good to reduce the number of competing companies in an industry from 100 competitors to 3 monopoilies through mergers and aquisitions"


DU also proves how elusive terms are, even (especially?) when we are trying to define them. Sometimes we get bogged down fighting over words instead of ideas..... or confused about the difference.

:patriot:

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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