Has victory eaten our souls? have activists morphed into strategists?

[The Count]

For longer than I am a member i came to DU because I was attracted by the passion of people who believed in the same things I did and did something about it. Protested, voted, wrote. It all inspired, validated and energized me too.
I enjoyed celebrating here the past 2 weeks although I didn't notice the "politicking" getting a bit louder than usual (like the post about W's escalating the war being "a good thing" because now the South will hate him")
Now, after an election that was so unanimous as to overcome the attempts at theft, some politicians need to posture.
An election which, whatever the MSM says was decided by the opposition to war

and yet some feel we now need to "trick" people into opposing the war.
I know Rangel's idea is not new. I had this argument with friends when he first advanced it - and I was then defending him. Why? because democrats were a minority party, there was no chance in hell for this to even come to the floor - so it was moot enough to be just rhetoric.
Now people voted against the war, They voted democrats in to stop the war, not draft their children. The case is made. Bush wanting to escalate only leads to his implosion. Unless of course, some craven politician comes to his help to play a game with people's lives.
I think democrats being in power now do not need to resort to tricks. They should use their power to limit W's ability to wage war (defund, criminalize profiteering, impeach). No tricks that may go terribly wrong.
This post however is not about the draft. It's about the many here who feel the election has given us a right to play with people's lives. To strategize instead of doing good.
To all the buddying Carvilles here: it's how GOP started the road to immorality.
I am hoping this will pass (and the draft will not).
Until then, I'll take some time off as too much politicking is bad for my soul. Hoping the passion for the right things (and reason) will prevail.

Drafting for peace=fucking for virginity.

[Fermezlabush]

1. Judging by the deafening silence in response....

I guess we are the party of tricksters now...

[sui generis]

2. armchair strategists

You nailed it with your subject line.

Throw out that unpopular gay rights stuff - they're too uppity anyway, running around thinking their opinion matters on anything.

Characterize some as "suicide doves" and gloat that it's a "fucking brilliant" phrase.

But you know what. I'm not a democrat because I'm too nice to be republican. So some of these nasty self-appointed "strategists" just better get used to that sensation: it's called "blow back".

We're not going anywhere. The strategists "messianic buzzards" sense a vacuum in the power structure and they view anyone who doesn't take advantage of it as weak and in need of leadership and guidance.

Boy are they wrong - but that's what these friendly discussions are for.

Them: "We're here to tell you what to think. If you don't agree you aren't a real democrat. You're a suicide dove."

Me: "Oh yeah? Well as long as your head is that far up there what do your tonsils look like from that angle?"

[The Count]

3. "I am not a democrat because I'm too nice to be a Republican" Thanks.

I shall remember those words.
Like Dreyfuss's on Maher show: "We have to impeach, because what we don't object to, we condone"
Exactly. We either stand for something, or we are nothing.
War is bad. Gay rights are civil rights - therefore non-negotiable.
Human lives can not become stakes in a poker game. Period.
Conyers, Dodd, leahy, Waxman - they seem to have gotten it.
Rangel - not so much.
Those who applaud anything with a "D" attached to it - think of what we mock the freepers for.

[jgraz]

4. Drafting for peace=fucking for virginity?

I'm a strong supporter of both.

[The Count]

5. Let me know when you get those results you pursued.

You do have those results in mind now, right?

[Lilith Velkor]

6. Strategy is good. STUPID strategy is bad and will kill us.

[The Count]

7. And this one is....? (not sure you agree with me)

And strategy should never trump the actual goal, the values that created it (such as human lives should not be politicians' games)

[Lilith Velkor]

13. Criminally stupid

Rangel's party just took both houses because the war is unpopular, and now he wants to threaten us?

At least Pelosi had the brains and decency to tell him to STFU. With Dems like these, what the fuck is the point in getting the majority?

[The Count]

18. Thanks. I agree,

I was just reading about neocons now saying the war was a bad idea.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/18/AR2006111801076.html

Embittered Insiders Turn Against Bush

It's just a matter of time until it's Dems' fault.

[Raiden]

30. Definitely agree!

I like Rangel an awful lot, but when he endangers our precarious majority to support some already-manifest point, he needs to STFU!

This isn't like gay marriage, or abortion: issues which are matters of principle. What he is doing is political...so he (and all his supporters on this matter) shouldn't be surprised that people are reluctant to support his idiotic proposal.

I'll never serve in a war I don't support and I wouldn't expect anyone else to either. Rangel's proposal would at least be benign if we were still in the minority now. As someone much more eloquent than I said earlier on DU, "rattling the cage works best when you're inside."

[wtmusic]

8. So just keep "playing with" poor people's lives

and let the rich send them to their deaths? This has nothing to do with strategy and everything to do with accountability.

[robbedvoter]

9. Yeah, because during the draft, rich people went to war. W anyone?

Of course there will be no loopholes for the rich. Ever. It's worth killing all our kids to just get one of them, non?
:sarcasm:

[wtmusic]

11. You bet there won't be any loopholes.

Last time Rangel proposed this legislation there weren't, there wouldn't be now. All American men and women between 18 - 26 would be eligible, with deferments only for those under the age of 20 who haven't finished high school. "Other priorities" won't cut it.

[The Count]

15. !8-42. And sure, all bills in Congress pass exactly as proposed.

No one would dare amend it. And it will be enforced to the letter - no doctor will give a rich kid a deferment. You're right, what was I thinking?
let them all die - it's fair now!

[wtmusic]

20. Amending it that way would defeat the purpose of the bill

so I'm not sure what the incentive would be. But we could amend it to include no phony doctor deferments for rich kids -- ya think?

[The Count]

10. Nice straw man . I don't want ANY LIFE to be played with. STOP THE WAR!

I was advocating more straightforward, effective means of ending this war - criminalizing profiteering, de-funding, impeachment.
My point - draft will not accomplish THAT - clever as it seems to you.

[wtmusic]

12. Straw man?

Where? Or do you just like the sound of that phrase? :eyes:

[The Count]

14. Answering to a premise I didn't raise - such as wanting poor people's lives

to be played with - when what I want is all troops to come home. Yup. Straw man.

[wtmusic]

17. By not instituting a draft, that is exactly what your premise involves

it's called "status quo". Poor people shouldering the burden of the rich.

Tell you what, let's start a draft tomorrow, and begin the process of bringing everyone home after that. I promise, things will move much faster.

[The Count]

19. Tell you wat, let's stop approving money for this war, impeach bush

make them find profiteering not as sweet(criminalize it). See which one works better.

[wtmusic]

21. Room for both approaches nt

[The Count]

23. No, there isn't. Which is why Pelose came out and spoke of it.

[wtmusic]

24. ?

Whatever.

[The Count]

27. Whatever yourself. Story here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2765787

[niallmac]

31. An honest Draft makes us all honest.

I would be very uncomfortable pontificating about how bad an idea a
Draft is if I happened to be among the fortunates who does not need the
military to get out of my socio economic hole.

The present situation of war making in America is entirely immoral, unjust
and undemocratic. This war is being fought by a targeted group of our population
and that group does not contain those who benefit from a huge increase in their
stock portfolios nor does it involve their children. Shame on this country.

[Lilith Velkor]

16. Your assumption that anyone wants to "play with poor people's lives"

...constitutes a strawman. Go ahead, look it up.

[The Count]

22. Thanks Pelosi for removing the sword over my kids' heads

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2765787
Still trying to figure out the enthusiasm on DU.
Funny, the poor are never discussed here - not when it comes to taxes, economical measures that will improve their lives. Dem party always talks of "Middle class". Stick the word 'draft" to the issue and everyone here is for the poor. :shrug:

[WilliamPitt]

25. I'd like to think

that we can meld passion with strategy. That's how the right-wing managed to gain so much power.

[The Count]

28. True. But strategy cannot cancel our core beliefs or else....

We cannot rejoice that war escalates - "because the South will turn against W"

[BlooInBloo]

26. Rather than riffing on the obvious genius of the OP, let's mix it up...

It's a travesty that The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions isn't required reading in American high schools.

(For those - the majority - who don't get it, it suffices to note that even the most superficial reading of that book would preclude the OPs question from even be asked.)

[sui generis]

37. that was delicate.

Pitt started another thread with almost the same title. I would also recommend reading The Prince, but also reading it with an objective eye instead of as the literal truth of the world.

It would seem some self-styled democrats have taken some Macchiavellian lessons to heart though.

[AntiFascist]

29. I think the trick has been played on us....

judging by the overwhelming pro-war support I'm seeing on behelf of Democrats.

[NobleCynic]

32. In defense of amorality...

some of us believe that bringing back the draft is wrong on a strategic level.

Strategy is just a means to an end. Proper weighing of the costs is the issue.

[The Count]

33. It's the wrong means to that end - and I an thankfull it's been officially put

to the curb by Nancy Pelosi.
As for amorality, let;'s leave it to the other guys, OK?

[sui generis]

36. yeah I saw on that other thread

that it was suggested we had to "turn right" to avoid a crash.

That's what bugs me. A real leader knows how to make the case for not "turning right" which incidentally is very thinly veiled code for caving to the social conservatives on issues like abortion and same-gender marriage.

When you can't make the case for basic human rights you don't deserve to be in a position of leadership any more than the other side does. De facto leadership does not make "right".

[sui generis]

34. Short answer to your question is yes.

My biggest issue with sacrificing principle (excuse me "bending principle") is that it's the easy way out, and once you beat that path through the woods it becomes the only path people use. People are lazy and love to borrow assertions couched in clever phrases, a fact known intimately to pundits.

I saw somebody copycatted your thread so they could bloviate to their own crowd of bobbleheaded sycophants - that's exactly the issue. Didn't like this thread so picked up his toys and flounced off to his circle. The "strategists", who are really nothing more than opinionated pundits and who do nothing but get paid to comment on everything for a living, are indeed not activists, and do not put their ass out on the line for anything more vital than their opinions.

They're like high priests to the true believers - they respond with open wrath and pyrrhic acrimony to anyone who disagrees with them, and if the disagreement is on whether to stick by our guns on principle or change what the hell we stand for, they'll be the very first to call us suicide doves for having some standards.

When I start seeing some bridge building between strategists and activists I'll perhaps be more generous again with my opinions, less gloomy, but today things are what they are. I don't trust authority to know what's best for me, especially not when they're telling me I'm too stupid to make those decisions for myself.

I just have a hard time distinguishing between an evil dictator and a benevolent dictator except that one smells like elephant dung and the other smells like ass.

[mondo joe]

35. I don't believe in souls. But I do believe in a self governing people, and I do

believe in political process.