Is Party Purity or Party Power the Better Priority?

[tekisui]

[Buzz Clik]

1. It isn't simple.

[HughMoran]

4. You mean "it isn't that simple"

You're right - it's not simply "A" or "B" - it's some of "A" and some of "B". Choosing one or the other is patently absurd.

[Taverner]

19. +1 - this is not a "yes or no" kind of answer

What are the stakes? What is the state of the nation? What are the options? Who was in power before, and what did they do? Who does the gatekeeping?

[derby378]

2. I choose both

What good is it to support a party if the party can't even tell you what it supports? That's why the Republicans are being undermined by the teabaggers right now.

[nightrain]

3. Given those two choices, I'd go for "purity" with the assumption that a range

of similar values would be acceptable...

[robinlynne]

5. If the party represents the true values of the people, the power will be there.

"purity" as you call it. I wouldn't call it that. I would call it simply honesty.

[phantom power]

6. I suppose "pure" enough to unify behind some key party principles.

It doesn't mean everybody has to become robots. But is there a single principle or policy that the Dems are willing to rally behind? I can't think of one.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. The way to power is through purity -

(and yes, I know that sounds like a slogan from 'V for Vendetta'). But having a 'majority' that votes with the other side as often as not is NOT having a majority. It is an invitation for the most venal to become the most powerful, as they become the swing votes - which is exactly the problem we are facing today.

Party purity - having a party that holds clearly defined standards and goals, and the expectation that those in the party will support those standards and goals - is the only way to gain the trust of the public.

PEOPLE WILL NOT VOTE FOR PEOPLE THEY CANNOT TRUST.

[Salviati]

8. Purity without concern for pragmatism is foolish...

Power without concern for ideological cohesiveness is pointless.


The question is where do you draw the line. The powers that be have no problem worrying about the pragmatic side of things, but as far as the ideological line is concerned, I can definitely think of some things that put you on the wrong side of the line.

1) Your vote belongs to the party on all procedural matters. Anyone caucusing with the Dems who doesn't side with them on a cloture vote needs to be reprimanded.

2) Voting against the party on measures that your constituency is in favor of. I've got no problem with people who vote on isses the way the people in their district want, that's what their elected to do. I welcome those who may disagree with their constituents in the view of the broad stroke of history. I think those that betray both their party and their constituents are obviously corrupt or otherwise compromised, and again should be dealt with.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. IDEALLY, there would be no political parties.

They tend to keep out newbies, they tend to collect around money, and they gain too much power over our democracy. Today, the two party system has atrophied and prevents real competition of ideas or changes in policy.

Even under Obama, the question is not whether to change policies completely, but more of a matter of degree. The refusal to investigate torture, the gitmo mess, the refusal to push for single payer medical coverage, too often the two party system results in us playing GOP Lite.

[stray cat]

10. A party of one? (since that way I get complete agreement ie purity)

[Sebastian Doyle]

11. Senator Lieberdouche? Is that you?

:hide:

[slackmaster]

12. Other - Electing competent, honest public servants

Party purity and party power are overrated.

[cark]

21. I'm with you, but would add experience to your list

I would add experienced to this list. If you look at a list of our congressional leaders they have almost zero real world experience. To a person they haven't every had a real job outside of politics. No private business or employment experience what-so-ever. I think this is a contributing factor to their sub 20 approval rates and the mess our country is in. Pick a leader and look for yourselves.

Obama, Biden, Frank, Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer
McConnell - trying to think of other repub leaders but they don't have of any.

[no_hypocrisy]

13. Party Purity: Look where it's gotten Republicans in the 23rd District in NYS.

[Ozymanithrax]

14. This sounds like a test for Republicans. Most of them are voting for party purity.

You see, their belief is that if Conservatives just follow in lockstep their conservative ideals Americans will elect them all the time.

The idea that if we just follow our liberal ideals or our progressive ideals (they are not synonymous) then Americans will elect us all the time is as based in reality as Conservative Purity and Turdblossom's permanaent Republican majority.

Ideological purity is a trap.

[Ruby the Liberal]

15. If party power doesn't lead to party purity (or at least close)

then it is worthless.

We have the WH and both halves of Congress, yet the collective priority is appeasing Olympia Snowe on HCR?

Doesn't bode well for party power being the broker for the people as it would seem...

[LLStarks]

16. I had trouble reading the topic title without stumbling on my words. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish...

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. Without power, our principles don't mean shit.

How can anyone seriously think that we're worse off today? We're putting credible and effective pressure on our government for the first time in a decade, and it wouldn't be happening even if every single member of our minority congress was Dennis Kucinich.

Fuck purity. Power paves the streets.

[nightrain]

20. and given the answers so far... I'd wonder what the female/male split was...

[Zodiak]

22. Neither

See, what is getting lost in all of this discussion of purity and power is that the goal of a political party is neither power nor purity, but getting things done for the American People.

That is the bottom line.

If power gets help to the American people when they need it...fine.
If purity gets that help....fine.

But sucking up to one principle or another (Repukes are so far into purity that they are becoming irrelevant, and the Democrats focus so much on power they get little done) and NOT getting anything meaningful get done is the paradigm we have been dealing with.