Ash Wednesday

[H2O Man]

"I’m for whatever gets results. I don’t go for any organization that has to compromise with the power structure and has to rely on certain elements within the power structure for their financing, which puts them in a position to be influenced and controlled all over again by the power structure itself. I’m for anything that gets results for the masses of our people – but not just for the benefit of a hand-picked few."
--Malcolm X; January 28, 1965

There are, of course, people who hold a wide range of social and political views, who identify themselves as "democrats." I am one of those people. In the past year – and particularly in the past couple of months – I’ve read and thought about a number of the OPs and threads on the Democratic Underground, including a whole bunch that focus on what people believe that being a "democrat" really is …..and is not. Many of these have been both interesting and of value, others with little meaning or value, and of course, many that fall somewhere in the middle.

I’ve been a member of the DU community since 2003. I joined, in part, because I found this forum to be a place where liberal and progressive democrats could talk shop. There are people who have slightly different opinions on what "liberal" and "progressive" means; in my view, a liberal seeks to make substantial changes to the system, in order to bring about social justice, while progressives believe that the system requires changes from the foundation up, in order to make social justice a possibility.

I identify myself as a progressive democrat. I am entirely comfortable working with liberals, who I consider slightly to the right, as well as with my non-democratic friends who are further to the left than I am. We tend to view certain things in slightly different terms, but we have shared values, common goals, and a sense of trust.

While I do not seek to impose my religious/spiritual beliefs on anyone else, they are part of my being. I subscribe to a humanist, earth-based Liberation Theology. That translates into my being a Kennedy Democrat: President Kennedy’s American University address, in which he spoke of a world without offensive weapons systems, and an investment in human beings, is my manifesto. I am a King Democrat: when Martin Luther King, Jr., told us in his "A Time to Break Silence (Beyond Vietnam)" speech that we had to come to value human life more than machines and profit motives, I know he was absolutely on target. I am again a Kennedy Democrat: the transformation of Attorney General Robert Kennedy into Senator Kennedy, the anti-war advocate of the poor and oppressed, is in my opinion a road map for all those who work for social justice. I am a Gandhi Democrat: I know of no God other than that found in the hearts of the poor, oppressed, and suffering. And I am a Malcolm X Democrat: I believe that we must try to be honest, speak honestly, and live honestly, even when it is inconvenient or uncomfortable.

During the Bush-Cheney years, I enjoyed DU as an island of relative sanity, at a time when I believed that our form of Constitutional Democracy was being ruthlessly and utterly destroyed. This is not to say that I was suffering from any delusions about the serious threats to our democracy in previous times. Nor that I thought the election of any and all democratic politicians would be a cure.

Yet, I invested time, energy, and money during the ’06 and ’08 elections, just as I have ever since turning 18. The difference was that I had a greater ability to engage in "voter education and registration." In my own small way, from the grass roots level, I was able to contribute to the larger movement that is best illustrated by the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States.

Still, I did not fool myself into believing that our mission was accomplished, or our goals met. I had stated numerous times on DU, for example, even before last year’s elections, that liberal and progressive democrats would be required to step up the organizing for pressuring President Obama to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not only because these are not wars we can "win" – one might have supported the initial military response in Afghanistan, but that window of opportunity closed long ago, and the invasion of Iraq was necroconservatism’s lie – but not only will the continued efforts to occupy these lands cause far more suffering, death, and hatred, but they make meaningful human progress in this country impossible.

Recently, I have noticed a disturbing increase in posts on this forum that strike me as going beyond advocating a moderate democratic agenda, and instead seem like attempts to impose a rigid, conservative democratic view. This goes beyond the usual clutter that is found when browsing DU:GD. I do not care if Carrie Prejean picks her nose, or if Jon and Kate pass gas. But I do question the motivation of those who seem intent upon discrediting liberal and progressive ideals, labeling them as unrealistic, and defining conservative democrat’s actions and inaction as being "the way."

Malcolm used to describe the politicians in Washington, DC, in an interesting way. He said that the republicans were wolves, who would bare their fangs right to your face, to let you know they were a threat to your well-being. And he said the democrats were foxes, that smiled to your face, then bit you from behind. Now, of course, Malcolm had some friends in Washington, and was speaking in general terms. I think that most liberal and progressive democrats understand and appreciate what he meant. Conservative democrats might understand it, though I doubt they would appreciate him telling the truth that way.

Now, I realize that not only is there room for wide differences in values and opinions within the democratic party, but that the same holds true for the Democratic Underground. But, as a progressive democrat, who engages in the organizing efforts at the grass roots level, I know that I can’t go back to the well in 2010, and get much support for the politicians in Washington who have helped continue the wars, or who have not fought for the Public Option, or other meaningful changes. I will only invest my time, energy, and money in support of those who engaged in meaningful efforts to help the masses of our people, rather than that hand-picked few.

Peace,
H2O Man

[Garbo 2004]

1. K & R . nt

[H2O Man]

2. Thanks

Will the veiled sister pray for
Those who walk in darkness .....
Those who are torn on the horn between season
and season, time and time, between
Hour and hour, word and word, power and power
those who wait
In darkness? Will the veiled sister pray
For children at the gate
Who will not go away and cannot pray;
Pray for those who chose and oppose.
--T.S. Eliot; Ash Wednesday

I figure that you understood the "title" to the OP, but am posting this in case others did not. More democrats should read T.S. Eliot.

[Garbo 2004]

6. Yes, I did. Thanks for your thoughtful essay. Much appreciated.

(I was almost on the verge of weighing in on the latest Carrie P issue, but your calming, reasoned and eloquent post snapped me out of it. LOL.) ;)

[mmonk]

33. Thanks for adding that to the thread.

[stevedeshazer]

3. I'm with you.

Thanks for making sense, not only in this thread but in so many others.

I identify with the Democratic Party in pretty much the same way you do.

We must change the party, and the progressive movement is the way to do it.

We're getting stronger.

[H2O Man]

10. I think that we are

indeed getting stronger. And that this strength explains some of the reactions we are seeing.

Thanks.

[brer cat]

4. Bravo, H2O Man!

Progressive voices are seldom heard here, and none so eloquent as yours.

K&R

[H2O Man]

18. Thank you!

I do appreciate that. Very much.

There are times when I post things on here, and get zero response. So I wonder: is it that I fail to communicate? Or, that no one agrees (or disagrees enough to respond)? Or both?

I'd like to think my contributions here add something of value. And so, again, I do appreciate your kind words.

[texastoast]

5. I work for candidates--not the party anymore

I'm unhooking my paltry donation to the party if there is not a meaningful public option that includes coverage for women's family planning if it's going to cover boner boosters and vasectomies.

[H2O Man]

21. I agree.

I've stopped donating any money to groups that support all democratic office-holders up for re-election. I still get phone calls, and I always take the time to explain exactly why I am only going to support specific candidates. And, although I've had a couple of rude responses, the majority of those who call have told me that they are getting similar responses from others, and appreciate that I take the time to talk to them about my decision.

If we want to communicate with the politicians in DC, we have to speak the language that they understand. If I speak English to someone who only understands French, there is no communication. Politicians only understand money and votes. If they want any of mine, they have to earn it.

[KoKo]

73. But...there's this..

I've gotten those same phone calls......

What is the probable, likely truth of it is...that those callers are paid..(not volunteers that we assume) because I had a big e-mail confrontation with my local Dem Party here in NC where they "OUTSOURCED" the "CALLS" to paid operatives. Back during Kerry Campaign, I got a call from someon who could barely speak English...and I asked her where she was from...she said "I cannot speak to this."

I immediately e-mailed my wonderful Progressive Dem who was Campaign Aide to Mike Easley (former Governor of NC) about getting a call for DONATIONS of my MONEY to someone who couldn't say where they were calling from. It took a month or so..and I got back a reply that YES...NC DEM PARTY had "Outsourced" but it was under "Advisement" given the complaints.

What does that say? :shrug:

[H2O Man]

78. That speaks loud and clear.

This isn't the Democratic Party of my father and grandfather, that's for damned sure. They were FDR Democrats, but in today's political landscape, I suspect they would be Malcolm Democrats.

[KoKo]

92. If Outsourcing saves money for Dem Party...then why shouldn't they do it

because the "End Cause" is worth the compromise of "outsourcing?"

I could see that. I don't want to see that...but I could see that as a compromise of how they "claim" they have to compete with Repugs.

But, you and I know...they didn't have to do that...don't we. :-(

[KoKo]

163. Weekend Lalla Palooza!

:kick:

[bleever]

7. I'm willing to bet your "unrec" came

from someone who didn't even read the post.

I appreciated it though. Forsaking the base for the shelter of the "middle" is dire folly for Democrats who wish to retain power.

[BeHereNow]

16. And I'm willing to bet it came from the poster on this thread I have on "ignore."

I love having the option to "ignore."
Why bother with paying attention to those who continually
cast garbage in the stream?

Especially when there is cool clean water to enjoy, like H2O man and others?
BHN

[H2O Man]

29. Right.

There are a few people on DU who would disagree with me about the weather. I consider their hostility as confirmation that I know which way the wind blows.

[Octafish]

8. ''I am a Kennedy Democrat.''

Thank you for taking the time to put why into words, H20 Man.

As you know, ours would be a very different world, and a much greater nation, had President Kennedy and Senator Kennedy lived out natural lifespans. The same, of course, goes for Dr. King and Malcolm X.

PS: I had not given Malcolm X more than a passing interest, until reading your work on DU. The man was profound and had, as James Douglass noted, "turned" toward peace. Honored and priviledged to K&R.

[Octafish]

22. A Letter to the American People (and Myself in Particular) On the Unspeakable (James Douglass)

Just found it...

On the day before his assassination, Malcolm X phoned Alex Haley and told him why he was going to stop saying that it was the Muslims who were about to kill him. He said: "I know what (the Muslims) can do and what they can't, and they can't do some of the stuff recently going on."

SOURCE: A Letter to the American People (and Myself in Particular) On the Unspeakable (James Douglass)

We the People have been up against the wall for a long time. It became obvious on November 22, 1963.

[H2O Man]

31. Thank you.

Carl Sagan thought that Malcolm's autobiography was the most important American book. And I remember Dick Gregory saying, early in the Reagan years, that the United States would not be able to understand the Islamic world, until they came to understand and appreciate Malcolm. Dick was right, of course -- he usually is -- and the curious thing is that Malcolm's life represents not only what is "bad" about our country's history, but more significantly, represents the possibility of the meaningful change that defines the best in this nation.

I never had the opportunity to meet Malcolm in life. However, one of my closest friends was associated with him, especially after his break from the NOI. My friend was one of the bridges between Malcolm and Martin. Malcolm and Martin had begun, through a couple of bridges, to plan a unified effort, which would have included domestic and international issues. It remains one of that era's great "what might have been."

Also, in my years working in human services, I enjoyed a close friendship with the Quaker woman who, while doing jail/prison reform, convinced the fellow who was correctly convicted of killing Malcolm to finally tell the truth about what he knew, and who he worked for.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. I agree with Sagan

Malcolm's Autobiography stands alone among autobiographies because of the man's honesty about himself, both to the reader and to himself. A book of changes, a book of evolution and improvement.

[Jax]

59. 2 more of DU's finest right here

You and the OP.

Your posts/research facts, knowledge of the lifetimes of crimes...stellar, invaluable.

Thank you both for making me a better citizen of the world by sharing your unsurpassed knowledge here.

:thumbsup:

Alyce

[HughMoran]

9. There sure are a wide range of opinions in DU

While on one side there are discussions over whether Dems should compromise at all on legislation like the heath care bill, on the other extreme there are those who seem "OK" with Stupak like provisions. I assume the latter won't last long here, so I've been ignoring those threads for the most part. I think the battle over healthcare reform has people on edge. Once health care is passed, I think discussions will be less divisive.

[H2O Man]

32. I hope that

you are right. But I suspect that it goes beyond the issue of health care.

[PATRICK]

11. I wonder if there are two answers

Cali recently asked why the beat-ups on DK? It seems to me the major problem might be(and I haven't checked names that would easily answer my curiosity, Call me lazy.) a continuation of the primary animosities. If Kucinich hadn't been a critic and competitor against Obama he wouldn't be under the perpetual cloud and scorn that underly ANY recent set to's against administration legislation. The tension is understandable because of the constant assault that the arrived champion is subject to. Kerry people would be doing likewise. Edwards people sorely irked and ready to do the same. All alternate universes of course would be secretly burdened by chagrin, disappointment, resentment etc. in a very complex and touchy insider psychology where THIS time national and world policy are at stake in Democratic hands.

Why is this a primary season thing still? because to accept various candidates especially the final two, a lot of reality had to held at bay, sidestepped and never faced. The ebullient cloud of transforming the Obama supporters into the THE new wave needed to make substance of the needed populist movement has dissipated into global goodwill but weak to moderate policy on many key fronts. It is fairly obvious, outside the emotions, that we have gotten pretty much what we have been allowed to vote for, having beaten most of the worst and truly horrific choices. I think, outside the ideology, usual errors and big money resistance Obama is one of our best presidents, maybe just not good enough for the extreme times- but our best have always had to work that out in doubt, change and fate. So we'll see, God willing. Meanwhile some Obama supporters, the shrillest I am guessing not being black and very used to getting beaten down while clawing ahead, are going through some of the same angst Irish Catholics had to endure during any Kennedy adversity or scandal, as Greeks did when Dukakis got trashed, Humphrey supporters did after the Chicago convention, McGovernites after getting swiftly buried by everyone after their convention. It never stops for the champion Dem and his true believers. Considering what ALL Dems are up against it is not surprising the touchiest are those who imagine themselves on the frontmost lines.

The second answer is a vague speculation. That we are seeing the creation of Obama Dems much like Reagan Dems, moreso than had happened with Clinton. That would be a centrist coalition with culled liberals such as frequent our boards, abandoned good GOPers wherever they are(haven't surfaced much yet)DLC and corporate fans and some of those vague undecideds not too confused by the media 24/7 hate cannonades. We have had pragmatic and in-the-system liberal champions before in and outside DU. Kennedy admirers would have had no problems with the wide spectrum of liberalism back in his day. Thanks to the current crisis and bad climate this is not going to go very well either, forgetting how shallow the Reagan mandate was in its shallow admirers, how falsely pumped up by falser journalism, how sanity itself is denied in order to deny its logical success.

Setting all that aside however, I am not surprised at the current drift considering what was not done during each and every past crisis the past several years when DU consensus was by no means unanimous or 100% progressive. What was done altogether was something, but the question was the need for more movement, more united organization, more work, more progressive candidates and really more rebuilding of dreams that in fact never were in a situation far worse and shameful than any in our past history(though not all evils were unprecedented). Bush and the abandonned field of unpleasant truth left gold mines of research and advocacy lying everywhere for any blogger to gather up and look good.

There should have been no relaxing in the election of half answers in an unreformed system, yet we have an unfortunately robust continuation of primary season fan divisions reminiscent of DU as blog group, not DU truth seeking and action. It is all so consistent. Winning has brought the added pique of actually being responsible for boosting positive efforts. Anger is a great avoidance. Power is a great argument stopper. Facts are scary things to shelve for the future. Those just now coming aboard probably have no idea that becoming an Obama defender means taking on the advanced syndromes of primary season.

For one reason or another Obama is not fronting the progressive and best policies 100%. The field is once more open for the work we always knew needed to be done in vast quantity with actual action. Work, not bickering. My Rep. Eric Massa is going to suffer from just this type of neglect and diversion. He did not run against Obama, suffered the slings from both the Obama and Hillary camps back in the day, and gets short shrift from everyone now. His committment: health for all as the Congress enjoys it. Obviously if we have not arrived there it is because there is much to be done in other fields for which only popular aggressive movement can make it happen and quicker. The real fear should be in going backward and fighting all the way- like the current GOP.

[H2O Man]

48. Great points.

Valid points, and very important. I would encourage you to consider making this into an OP, because I think it is the type of good thinking that we need to be exposed to on DU now.

Part of my family, as people here know, is from the northeastern woodlands. Here, people learned how to use the differences between groups -- differences that were, in fact, almost identicle to those you accurately describe here -- to form a "confederacy" that provided strength for all. The only option to that is the weaknesses associated with divisions: anger, hostility, and an inability to promote the common good.

Thank you.

[bobbolink]

67. I understand your points about the aftertaste from the primaries... however, I know that it doesn't

apply to me... I can't speak for others, of course.

I saw in '04 what Obama was about... Clinton-lite. That's why I couldn't get behind his candidacy.

However, my feelings about what he is doing now doesn't stem from that: I would have been delighted to have been proved wrong! I would have posted an "I was wrong" thread on DU, with much glee. I would have been ecstatic for him to take actions that would have actually given me hope!

After appointing Rahm and Geithner, etc, I was prepared for the belly drop, but some of it has been even worse than I had imagined.

So, again, for me... it has NO connection to the primaries.

Obviously, I can't claim to know if it does for others or not. But your point deserves thought, and I hope that all of us will think it through deeply and honestly, and if it fits, to be adult enough to change our approach with each other.

Thank you. :hi:

[PATRICK]

77. Then there is that

The actual performance. Any moron could have played the 2001 Congress and made the entire country happy. Bush, of course, was not just any moron. Absolutely not one scintilla of giving or compromise sullied the pure exploitation of all things for his selfish interest- even if that meant relying solely on absurd propaganda and brute power to substitute for the few tokens that would have truly suckered everyone. No child left behind, steelworkers, teamsters, troops, right wing Congressmen- they were all rolled over like doormats and left with zip.

To try to tell some people how bad Bush was for the country was simply impossible in 2000. When he proved he was infinitely worse it went beyond even my usual pessimistic observation. That observation is that generally the office of the presidency magnifies the faults over the virtues and being an election winner is wrongly applied to the real jobs to be done.

So far the worst things have been strongly consistent, those gratuitous slams against "old fashioned unionism", "liberalism", the painfully honest praise of Reagan, Petreus, and the lack of alarm at GOP criminality and destruction of the Constitution and their current politics of NO compromise. With the exception of DK and eventually Edwards, getting quickly to the war against Dems and democracy was something most Dem leaders would not do, would hate to do, seem strangely blind to. Education, election reform, those useless boondoggle wars of honor, the fraudulent brand of terror, the renegade corporatists enshrined as gods of capitalism- none of those were clearly faced during the campaign and not now. It was all signaled gratuitously and seriously way ahead of this bizarre renaissance of money interest bi-partisanship that only exists in the same old transfer of fake wealth to a few destructive hands at the expense of resources needed for real physical calamities unfolding relentlessly.

I have a very positive post on Obama and his tactics upcoming, but I dread the final dipping into blood by this repugnant naivete and pragmatism which might be forthcoming in enlarging the fiasco in Afghanistan. You can argue that progress in health care as opposed to standing fast for rationally saving all lives and the economy as a responsible whole is something versus a righteous nothing. Killing soldiers for soft "change" and a more competent war crime will seal the madness of continuing Bush's evil policies in undeniable blood. They have not been able to take charge of foreign policy to prevent the typical LA coup, Bush holdover offenses, reign in rogue bankers, get positive work from a non-existent bi-partisan Congress, get a fair hearing from ANY of the MSM(FOX finally got part of the war against Obama through to the WH). If he thinks his adamance is amply rewarded by some results, some progress, this maddening policy stance will simply continue. Not being a moron or exploiter but an intelligent new "outsider" only makes this all the more upsetting. If it works with the people we can't simply destroy or mock or chip away at this stubborn agony. Yet progressives in this process are given little of the room to solve problems, remove barriers and back up this president.

Do we now need a super majority of progressives just to stand for sanity, legality and the obvious? This is not a fringe. It the core of the necessary and the good and the possible still denied by an absolute madness the core leaders of our party now in an exalted fog just don't get anymore than on 9/11 when they were kept waiting in the Capitol while the last late suicide plane struggled vainly to reach them or in 2002, 2004 when the voting and the propaganda was rigged easily against their softness(or soft-headedness or pig-headedness). That was never, ever, just Obama, but he is as far from understanding that problem as anyone.

[Mira]

12. Nodding all the way as I read it. Excellent and necessary. K&R

[H2O Man]

47. Thank you.

Not only do I have great respect for your opinion, but I recognize you as one of the kindest, most gentle voices of conscience on this forum. That combination makes for the type of strength that we need, both here and in the larger society.

[Mira]

112. Thank YOU H2O Man,

what you said about me gives me strength for more courageous acts and leaps of faith. That you noticed me in and of itself is making my life bigger.

[demosincebirth]

13. I'm a "yellow dog democrat" where does that put me? I agree with most, here...

and disagree with many. I have voted in every election, local and national, since 1960 and I have never cast a ballot for anyone other than a democrat. One republican I would have voted for (Pete McCloskey) but he was out of my district. He also ran for Pres in '72 against tricky Dick but didn't get the nod. I would have voted for him vs McGovern

[H2O Man]

46. Interesting response.

Thank you for it. And, if you are like that old "yaller dog" Theodore Hallam," then you are fine by me!

I'm comfortable with everyone on DU describing themselves in as open and honest a manner as they can.

[demosincebirth]

76. Here you go...

Currently, the term is now generally applied to refer to any Democrat who will vote a straight Party ticket under any circumstances

[defendandprotect]

54. Ouch! "Yellow Dog" has a rather nasty interpretation . . . maybe you had better . ..

explain your definition of who you think YOU are?

Old "yellow dogs" were anti-desegregation/civil rights movement and split with Dems.

Strom Thurmond, one example!

[demosincebirth]

75. Your definition is antiquated

This applies to me: Currently, the term is now generally applied to refer to any Democrat who will vote a straight Party ticket under any circumstances.

[defendandprotect]

105. Glad to hear that . . .!!!

So how are you different from the Blue Dogs -- or DLC'ers?

[demosincebirth]

122. I am Conservative on many issues,but I'll always vote for

a Democrat over any republican, except that one time in '72, when I would have voted for McCloskey over McGovern. I also support a womens right to chose what she does with her own body

[20score]

14. Well said! K&R.

[H2O Man]

86. Thanks.

Much appreciated.

[Morning Dew]

15. K&R and thanks for this post.

[H2O Man]

87. Thank you, and

I am glad that you and others enjoyed it. It is a good thread, I think.

[BeHereNow]

17. Delighted to RECOMMEND!!!

WE love you H2O man.
Hope you know that.

BHN

[H2O Man]

90. Many thanks!

I really do appreciate the responses on this thread. I think this is of the nature of the types of discussions that some of us "old timers" associate with "the good old days" on DU, when liberals and progressives could sit down and talk shop.

[northamericancitizen]

19. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. K & R

[H2O Man]

91. Thank you.

I am enjoying this thread. Lots of interesting discussion on it.

[Me.]

20. Every 1000 Soldiers That Are Sent To Afghanistan Costs Us....

1 billion dollars. How much would it cost to give 1000 people health care?

As for the other, there is so much hash being slung around...don't let the perfect be the......things take time, government is like sausage making, it ain't pretty and so forth. Well here's another saying....the proof is in the pudding. And I'm going to need to see some of that by the time the next election rolls around.

[defendandprotect]

55. Imagine how much 1,000 Blackwater contractors cost?????

However, I certainly know that the pathway is clear -- Public Option on health care --
we don't have to deal with Repugs --

we do need to target the DLC/Blue Dog Dems who are in the way --

It's corporations which make law making ugly and more like "sausage making" --

We need to have corporations banned from any involvement whatsoever with our elections!!!

[Me.]

66. Yeah Good Luck With That

There has to be change but it's going to have to come from us, we are really going to have to band together and insist on a better society or else it will not happen. Even now the lobbyists are lining up to make Swiss cheese of Dodd's banking bill. The chowder heads in DC, which include a fair number of dems will not work against their self interest so we are going to have to figure out how to force them to work for us.

[defendandprotect]

104. I don't think we're going to get anything done from home . . .!!

Where are the unions to call out members and Democrats to demonstrate for

Public Option?

Where the women's groups -- women and children need MEDICARE FOR ALL?

ETC...

"Americans overwhelmingly want a public option" ---

[H2O Man]

100. It's just amazing,

isn't it? And that's what it is -- the greed for money/power, that makes men view human beings in terms of digits in an account book. The same illness that reduces an individual's potential to be a caring, healthy human being, and instead to be willing to cause suffering and death for a profit motive, is found on a smaller scale in those who see the grass roots as a resource for contributions and votes, while ignoring the grass roots' human needs.

[anonymous171]

23. K&R. nt

[H2O Man]

99. Thanks!

[David Zephyr]

24. You just keep on making sense, H2O Man

K&R. What a positive influence you have been here. Thanks. -DZ

[H2O Man]

107. Thank you, Friend David!

I thought it was interesting that we both made OPs that, I believe, addressed the same basic issues. The fact that we were expressing similar thoughts at the same time convinces me that we have vaild concerns -- and that is certainly reinforced by the number of high-quality, thoughtful responses we see on both of these threads.

It is true that DU has changed. Indeed, it would be impossible for it not to change -- only lifeless materials remain the same through periods of time. Living organisms, by nature, must change: they either grow or shrink, evolve or degenerate. The increasing number of participants alone exposes the falsehood that "DU has always been this way."

Yet change can be either positive or negative. It is a matter of how we adopt to change. Attempts to deny change are, by definition, designed to reach stagnation.

I believe that OPs/threads such as your own and this one allow liberal and progressive DUers an opportunity to take an objective look at how they can best invest their energies, both in the context of DU, and within the Democratic Party. And I very much appreciate the opportunity to coordinate efforts with you.

[Mithreal]

25. K&R

[H2O Man]

108. Thank you!

[Mithreal]

123. My pleasure : )

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. k&r The Democratic party has traded in it's ideals for politics as usual and triangulation.

[bobbolink]

81. I'm sorry to say, I think that trading happened a long time ago.

I think Shirley Chisholm was aware of it back in '72, and I'm proud to have written her in on my ballot!

[H2O Man]

109. Right.

That is an accurate description for the majority of democratic politicians in Washington, DC. And, for that matter, of a vocal minority of DUers.

But liberal and progressive democrats aren't interested in a party that resembles the real thing. Give us what we have paid for, or we will demand a refund.

[democrank]

27. Bravo, H20 Man

The lame lip service offered up out of Washington each day is a sorry attempt at disguising the fact that money is the only language spoken there. As I wrote last week, my guide for future political decisions will be: No change, no money. No change, no vote.

As a Progressive, I take change seriously. An end to the occupation in Iraq doesn`t mean we still pay Blackwater and still blow up civilians. "Change" doesn`t mean we double efforts to protect war criminals like Bush and Cheney and their corrupting, anti-Constitutional policies. Change doesn`t mean we look away as much-needed linguists are thrown out of the military because they`re gay and it doesn`t mean we prop up every gluttonous corporation while we vote no to an extension of unemployment benefits.

I don`t think a president should make a whole bunch of snap decisions, but does it really take a half dozen political consultants, a few image specialists, some focus groups and the famous "trial balloons" to decide that four tours of duty in a war zone are more than enough? Do we really not give a damn that some 73 year old woman is chopping her pills in half to make them stretch? Too bad some of the homeless children didn`t set up their cardboard boxes on Wall Street because they would have at least gotten noticed....and maybe even bailed out....while our health-insured "friends across the aisle" yakked about bootstraps and personal responsiblity.

The "meaningful human progress" H20 Man wrote about won`t happen without a little push and a lot of noise because most of those in power put more energy into loopholes than solutions. So, the next time you hear that 30,000+ soldiers have been shipped off to one of Bush and Cheney`s old slaughterhouses, don`t call it change.

[bobbolink]

82. Oh, how I wish I could rec a reply! So very well said....and your words about

homeless children paint a very clear mental image.

Thank you. :yourock:

[H2O Man]

110. Great post!

You hit the nail on the head. Thank you very much!

[mmonk]

28. You have hit the progressive's lament. Everything we want

takes a long time, requires a movement instead of party support, and we never can get what we want simply by a bill here or a bill there. Entrenched power with its personal enrichment over the enrichment of many is stubborn in its hold and always finds a way to convince the powerless their fortunes lie with them, they just can't deliver it at this given time. They expect the raw and increasingly vicious opposition to drive you to them no matter what they put on hold for you and they talk flowery while working with those forces that keep others down and in place with effectively no say. What is particular disturbing in this era is they feel they can redefine the party now and unfortunately have been successful. I know it makes myself feel more isolated and unable to feel a sense of belonging to anything. At DU I have some like me. If I didn't have that, I would probably be in worse shape. But like you, I have decided I can no longer go door to door or contribute money to a label. I can only do it for substance and goals to advance the human condition here which has been deteriorating. There seems no way to swing the pendulum back this time. If it comes, it will be a long slog.

[H2O Man]

111. This summer, I had an

opportunity to break bread with an elected representative. I told him about my family's efforts to get people who were (a) to the left of the democratic party, and/or (b) so turned off by "politics as usual" that they no longer bothered to vote, to support the democratic candidates in '08. I said that it would be impossible for me to convince even a fraction of those people that their support for my efforts had been in their best interests, much less motivate them to vote for the democratic ticket again -- unless there was some meaningful change.

He understood. In fact, he said that he finds Washington to be so corrupt, that he has a hard time convincing himself that his efforts are worthwhile. He could make more money, live more comfortably, spend more time with his family, and do more good for his community, in a non-elected role. I'll never forget that conversation.

[chimpymustgo]

30. I can't believe how cavalierly many of "us" are throwing bedrock democratic principles aside.

K&R. Thank you for posting.

Jeffrey Sacks on MSNBC now - "You can't affect real reform in backroom deals."

[defendandprotect]

53. When things don't change, we have to change what we are doing -- !!!

Wm. Greider and Michael Moore have voiced what we should have been saying

here long ago -- target Democrats who behave like Repugs --

!!!!!

YES -- !!!!!!!!!

[H2O Man]

113. Right.

Now is the time to step up the liberal and progressive movement, in order to advance those bedrock democratic principles.

[tekisui]

35. Big KNR!~ H2O Man. Thanks so much for this post.

[H2O Man]

114. Thank you.

I like this thread. It's almost as if the "silent majority" is speaking up, as hesitant as I am to make such a bad joke.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. An outstanding post and a well needed post

It is almost perfect. Very well said. Malcolm and Eliot in one post, that is like writing just for me! Two of my favorites.

[H2O Man]

115. Malcolm and Eliot.

Can't beat that combination!

[Jackpine Radical]

37. Mit Wasserman

stehe ich. Ich kann nichts anders.

[H2O Man]

98. Many thanks!

It took me a second. The old memory isn't what it used to be!

I love the Twain quote, too.

[BeFree]

38. The Truth shall set you free.

Your voice is a welcome trumpet amongst the clamor of mere mortals, my DU friend.

It should be greatly heeded by the most recent of our comrades.

Peace.

[H2O Man]

116. I appreciate that.

I like to think that I am able to make a contribution to the serious efforts here on this forum.

[H2O Man]

39. Please Read:

One of my Good Friends brought something to my attention, and I want to take a moment (or more) to correct an error I made in the OP. It is in regard to the Carrie Prejean business. I regard her position on human rights -- and the right to be married to the person you love is absolutely a human right -- to be an example of the sickness in our society that simply must change. And her hypocrisy is offensive. A number of the comments here on DU have pointed this out, and often in a manner that has made me laugh out loud. I've been tempted to make a few pointed comments regarding her, too, though sometimes I find my own humor to be of questionable taste. Thus, my comment was a cross between thinking out loud to myself, and not thinking enough.

I am 100% in favor of equal rights for all in terms of marriage, and consider those who believe that certain groups have supior rights to suffer from defective thinking. Again, my goal is to obtain human rights and a quality of life for the masses, not that hand-picked few.

[BeFree]

42. Spell check is your friend, eh? grin

It is telling that you had to explain yourself. Seems the DU tolerance level is at extreme stress these days.

So be it. It is what it is. What doesn't kill one makes one stronger, eh?

[H2O Man]

45. I have not

been posting on DU much recently, in part due to health issues, and in part due to the atmosphere. One of my good friends here had e-mailed me a note of thanks for this OP, told me that they really appreciated what I wrote, and encouraged me to continue. During an on-going, off-thread discussion, my friend noted that while a person like CP was a jackass, she is harmful in the sense that she attacks a large group of our friends. There was no negative message -- exactly the opposite. It was, in fact, so positive that it got me thinking ....and that, and that alone, is why I added the comment.

I can take it a step further: Jon and Kate are shallow, greedy people. In many ways, they should simply be ignored. The amount of attention they get in the media is an accurate measure of how ill our culture really is (and of the media's role in spreading germs). However, in the sense that they represent biological parents who have inadequate parenting skills, there can be serious discussions about their ilk. And, hopefully, some jokes.

They are the human equivalent to chocolate Easter Rabbit candy: they tend to look sweet and attractive on the outside, but they are disappointingly hollow inside. They allow their greed for fame and fortune to damage their children. And, like most people, divorce is bringing out their absolute worst sides.

If they put their children's needs first (or on equal footing with their own), they would recognize the need to stop decomposing in front of the camera. But they are addicted to the bright lights and gold coins. In a healthy society, if they did accept a different lifestyle for the benefit of their children, their community would pitch in, and assist them. Sad to say that in our unhealthy society, too many in the larger community are willing to sit home and watch the televised freak show for "entertainment."

But I ramble on. And on. So it is when my friends on this forum get me thinking! Thank you for being one of them.

[conscious evolution]

40. K&R

Thanks.

[H2O Man]

117. Thanks.

"The evolution of man is the evolution of our consciousness, and our conscious mind cannot evolve unconsciously." That is a line from an old letter I got from my friend, who was friends with both Malcolm and Martin. I think of it when I read your contributions on DU.

[livetohike]

41. Thank you H2O Man

:hi: Thank you for (as usual) saying this so well. All the things I think too.....

Edit; Can't type

[H2O Man]

118. And thank you.

I will be attempting a short hike this weekend. I've been off my feet for about a month, and last weekend, was able to finally get out for a short hike. I've got to go slowly. But, with patience, the smallest snail can climb the largest of mountains.

[bigtree]

43. nope. no going back to the well

. . . for folks who I previously wished (in vain) that they'd benefit our party. (Though I'll likely be just as pragmatic in the next presidential election as I was in the last.)

[H2O Man]

119. Exactly.

There is a difference between not going to the well, and being idle. And in being realistic and unrealistic. And I think that there are a lot more people, like you and I, who are going to be realistic and pragmatic. No use in wasting energy, or throwing money away. Invest it wisely.

[G_j]

44. thank you, well said

I agree with you.

I'll also add that you, H20 Man, always treat people with respect, and add immensely to the good here.

[H2O Man]

120. I usually try

to treat people with respect, including those who think very differently than me, and who hold very different values. Still, there are times when I don't ....and there are probably quite a few people here who, over the years, have found me to be rude and obnoxious. Suppose that's part of being human.

[KoKo]

49. Quote from you that is profound for some of us....

"I know that I can’t go back to the well in 2010, and get much support for the politicians in Washington who have helped continue the wars, or who have not fought for the Public Option, or other meaningful changes. I will only invest my time, energy, and money in support of those who engaged in meaningful efforts to help the masses of our people, rather than that hand-picked few."

-------

This is what has wider and crucial implications for our Party going forward. The party's new "Activists" the ones who got involved after 2000 Selection, the ones who worked for Dean's "50 STATE" strategy and were partly successful bringing voting reform to the attention of our State Legislators (successfully getting paper trail and audits here in NC) are being marginalized or were sucked into the the "status quo DLC..let's get along with Repugs" mentality who now want to distance themselves from reform. Look at the reduction in funds to progressive websites. Look at how Huffington Post now has more Celeberity Porn cluttering it's political page. Josh Marshall's site often mimics Huffington Post with rumor and heresay and chatter. Other sites like "Smirking Chimp" begging every day for just $5.00 donations to keep site going. Buzzflash a shadow of itself. And minor feeder progressive sites struggling to be read at all. The progressive money is drying up as the move to the center right {and engaging with Republicans in compromise to win the mid-terms and beyond) calls for funding and support from groups that were the very same ones who got us into the desperate situation our country finds itself in now .....after years of rape and pillage of our laws, finance and social structure.

Many of us find we can't go back to that "well" again. And, the effect on some of us who have families and friends who now view us as altruistic fools is isolating and disheartening. Particularly if one has family and friends who are libertarian or far right but one managed to convince a few to vote for change (almost dragging bodily into the voting booth) and they wonder: "what was this all about?"

This isn't a good situation going forward for the Democratic Party, to lose their activists and reformists.

[bobbolink]

88. And there it is.

They ignore us at their own peril.... and the concentric rings spread outward.

[Time for change]

50. Very well said

I feel much the same way.

[H2O Man]

132. Thanks, TFC

And thank you for your outstanding contributions to this forum.

[horseshoecrab]

51. straight to the heart ...

of the matter H2O Man.

Thanks very much for these words.


horseshoecrab

[H2O Man]

133. Thank you.

I'm glad to see that you and others on this thread understand exactly what I am saying.

[defendandprotect]

52. Great post . . . agree -- and just want to mention re the POOR . . .

that happily I noticed my Sen. Robt. Menendez holding a hearing the other day on

at least the homeless vets . . . !!

But, when did we last hear from President Obama on our homeless, our poor, and the

still growing numbers of impoverished children????


Corporate co-option of the Democratic Party takes form in the DLC -- a poison which

has to be removed from the party.

IMO, Kucinich and Howard Dean are the LEAST of what the Democratic Party should represent!!

The LEAST . . .

[H2O Man]

134. You know, I'm just finishing

Ted Kennedy's book. And from the minute I read your post, I was reminded of his description of walking through the halls of a hospital where his son was, after his surgery for cancer. Senator Kennedy took the time to talk to other parents of sick children. The ability to walk among and talk with people from a different socio-economic status -- and obviously I don't mean begging for campaign donations, asking for votes, and making promises one has absolutely no intention of keeping -- is the single skill needed in order to insure an elected official is actually an elected representative. We do not have enough of that today.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

56. Bravo

Great OP and you are dead on. I am confounded at the centrist Dems on this board trying to tell me that "up is down" and the "sky isn't blue" recently. I know there are more of us on the board than them, but they are a very vocal minority. Thank you for speaking truth to power and telling it like it is.

[bobbolink]

89. They may be the "minority", but because of the ugliness they spread,

many the thoughtful majority are leaving.

Case in point.... even H20 man has been a more infrequent contributor.

To our detriment.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

57. Heck, I remember the days when --

the days we had GREENS on here! :D

I am just as disturbed as you. As the site gets more notice it has trended more to the center, even moreso once the 2008 election season started and DU was used by various camps to influence primary votes.

So many good progressive voices have been banned or moved on due to this rightward tilt. I stay because I think this is a worthwhile forum that needs every progressive voice it can get.

The Democratic Party is in serious danger of losing its soul in an effort to "win by any means necessary". It saddens me, disgusts me, and pushes me further from the Party. I too stopped supporting the Party years ago and now suport individuals. Feinstein hasn't gotten my vote in years and Pelosi didn't get it the last time out. Thank the gods for Boxer.

BTW, you need to send this post to every DNC/Congressional leader, your Dem reps (if you have them), and O himself. They need to see what is happening as a result of their refusal to live up to modern Democrat Party principles.

If something like Stupak gets passed, I am reregistering as a Green or Socialist and will make a point of sending copies to everyone in the Democratic Party who needs to get the hint.

Hang tough, H2O Man! :hi:
Hell

[H2O Man]

129. I have many good friends

who are Greens. A couple of them are DUers. I won't mention them by name, but a clue is in order: they aren't moderate or conservative. (grin)

This summer, while sharing a meal with a Congressman that my family helped re-elect, I told him that it would be difficult, perhaps impossible, for me to convince even a fraction of them to vote for many democrats in the future. The truth is than in a liberal-progressive alliance, they have just as much right to ask my support of their candidates, as I have to ask them to support mine. And, with democratic majorities in the House and Senate, and a Democratic administration, if there isn't serious progress, they may have more cards -- and stronger ones -- to lay on the table. The Congressman understood exactly what I was saying. I'm not sure that others in Washington do. Yet.

[MessiahRp]

58. Another shot out of the park H2O Man!

The sad part is that the entire concept of DU is up for debate at this point.

When it was started we were opposition to Bush's illegitimacy. But as time went on DU was the Underground for liberals and progressives that had been pretty much ignored by the right wing controlled media and Congress. The DLC and Blue Dogs are part of that same Republican pro-corporation power structure that I thought our Underground was sort of fighting for a voice against. The same people that put Bush into power twice illegally. That supported his wars even when all evidence to disprove Bush's claims were easily disputable. They supported illegal wiretapping. Tax cuts for the rich. The pharmaceutical giveaway in the GOP Medicare reform plan. They supported the bankruptcy reforms and were very strongly in support of an intrusive Patriot Act, not just when it originated but continuing it years afterwards when people were aware of the abuses.

These people enabled what DU was against, the Bush Regime, at the very highest levels and on every single issue.

If our mission statement is pretty much the same, they should have no defense or safe quarter here. And that includes Obama's hatchet man Rahm Emanuel who helped most of these people get into office.

We have a bit of soul searching to do. Are we a genuine "Underground" movement? Or are we just pro-Democratic Party shills who supports the Democrats even if they turn on us and support the very core values of the previous regime that this website was started in protest of?

To me I want us to be a voice on the left, not a voice for a party that at least with it's representation in Washington, leads us down the same path as the previous party in charge on far, far too many issues and will continue our economic ruin as a nation.

I say if you want to just be pro-Democrat... pro-Obama regardless of issue, policy or stance then sign up for the Democratic Party website and use the tools Tim Kaine provides to keep you motivated.

For the rest of us, we here at DU should continue to be what we were.. a leftward resistance to the status quo...

And I feel that the Republican brand being so tarnished is bringing a lot of people, ashamed to be a Republican, to this site thinking it's for all Democrats including the new ones who don't share our values and they go on the attack against liberals/progressives just as they did when they supported the GOP in the past... but now do it under the guise of our party's label.

Rp

[bobbolink]

93. Thank you for expressing eloquently my own thoughts.

The term "Underground" has absolutely no meaning at all anymore.

[H2O Man]

130. Right.

Most liberals and progressives have an understanding of, and appreciation for, the role we are proud to take -- both within the Democratic Party, and the nation as a whole. The others have far more of a herd mentality, and appear to resent something they know is "different" about us, but that they can't quite put a finger on.

[Jax]

60. kick

another H2O Man must read.

Not letting this fall off the front page.


Alyce

[H2O Man]

131. Thank you.

[tblue]

61. Beautifully stated! Thank you, H2O. DU has been becoming "Family Feud."

Do we have each other's back or not?

I've been thinking for some time that that grassroots support that propelled Obama to the presidency can't be taken for granted to do it again. I'm talking about us, all those first time voters, the volunteers we recruited, the ones who really wanted real change. What's gonna get them to do it again? Being told to shut up and be grateful?

Well, I'm plenty grateful but I am not done. And as long as there is war, poverty, and injustice, I'll be damned before I shut up.

Great post. You struck a chord that needed to be struck.

[H2O Man]

135. Obama & Grass Roots ....

I supported Barack Obama, and still do, because of my appreciation for the type of leadership he can provide. There are, of course, three types of leadership: traditional, systems, and charismatic.

A traditional leader is one, usually found among smaller societies, who does things "the way we always have." The best example of these would be leaders found in pre-industrial communities/tribes.

Systems implies the type of leadership found in larger nation/states. It is the ability to run a bureaucracy. When we think of many of the bland candidates found in the primaries over the decades, we get a clear picture of that type of leader.

Charismatic leaders inspire. They sometimes institute change in their group/society. They include the reformation prophets (such as Malcolm and Martin). Yet, these leaders rarely have the systems skills necessary to make long-term, institutional change. Often, though they can inspire people, there is a disappointment in their failure to make the machine work.

Barack Obama is, of course, a charismatic leader. Every DUer who read his books, or books/articles about his history as a community organizer and politician, should have known both his strengths and weaknesses as a leader. In order to truly institute change, he has to select (bland) systems people who are both intent upon and capable of creating change. Many of us, for example, believe that SoS Clinton has the ability to harness the machine in meaningful ways.

But, there are many, many bland systems parasites in Washington. Some are republicans, others are democrats. The liberal and progressive grass roots forces need to put extreme pressure on them, in order to have any chance of bringing about change. And, as I said back when Obama was in the democratic primaries, we need to increase the pressure on him, in regard to things such as his policy in Afghanistan.

[yellerpup]

62. Thank you for a thoughtful and well considered essay

and for lighting the path to meaningful change. Peace to you as well. :kick: & R!

[H2O Man]

136. Thank you.

I'm thinking of posting a "part 2" to this, probably next week. I hope that you will read and participate in that thread, too.

[SalviaBlue]

63. K&R

[H2O Man]

137. Thanks!

[Uncle Joe]

64. Kicked and recommended for the O.P. and the word of the day, "necroconservatism".

Necroconservatism; Conserving dead stuff by creating more of it, not to be confused with necrophilia; the screwing of the dead by the living, necroconservatism is a screwing of the living by the dead.

Thanks for the thread, H2O Man.:thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

138. Ha!

Now that should be a DU t-shirt: "Necroconservatism: a screwing of the living by the dead"!

[bobbolink]

65. I'm so grateful for your opening Malcolm X quotation!

That man had a way of putting into words my very thoughts... or what should BE my thoughts! How I wish I had been able to know him more. (I've looked for the records of his speeches, as you recommended, but have come up empty handed.)

There is one thing I will pick at nits on:

"while progressives believe that the system requires changes from the foundation up, in order to make social justice a possibility."

I believe that is more accurately the definition of those of us who consider ourselves "radicals". The word "radical" stems from the word for "root"--and radicals always want to go to the root of the problem, in order to find a real way to effect change.

Again, that Malcolm X quote is a keeper.... It brought up the tears in me... a sure sign of the roots of that idea.

:hi:

[KoKo]

68. bobbolink...and the Repugs are "Wolves..Dems are Foxes" quote is an essence.

"He said that the republicans were wolves, who would bare their fangs right to your face, to let you know they were a threat to your well-being. And he said the democrats were foxes, that smiled to your face, then bit you from behind."

Ain't that the truth of it....

I remember when folks used to say: "The manager of my company smiled and then stuck the knife in my back when he told me: "You are Fired."

[bobbolink]

69. OMG

:hide:

The FOXES get so angry when the chickens dare to peep this way!

:rofl:

~~sharing my asbestos skivvies with KoKo~~

[H2O Man]

139. Yes, right:

The best progressives are always radical. Always.

[Number23]

70. Lovely post. I won't rec because I'm not sure if I agree with the entire premise

but it's a wonderful post. And anyone that can reference Brother Malcolm in such a nuanced, intelligent fashion gets a :thumbsup: from me even though there is no question that towards the end of his life, he was beginning to take an entirely different view of politics, culture and his ability to affect change in American society. He was actually moving closer to the King model of the very "compromise" that he railed against in your opening quote.

His death (and the awful, tragic death of his wife Betty many years later) is one of those kinds of things that stab you through the heart. His autobiography is one of the best things I have ever read. Never saw the movie but I heard that Denzel was fabulous. :)

[KoKo]

71. Hey...what you are saying is: "In the END they WILL GET YOU...and COMPROMISE YOUR BOD!

"Won't be nothin' left when the "Man" (PTB) finish with you "BRO."

When you are finished you know it...they only give you your 15 Minutes of Fame. If you can create a "MOVEMENT" they give you a little longer before "TBTB" PULL THE PLUG.

Is that what you are thinking...questioning? :shrug:

[Number23]

72. What??

[KoKo]

74. What? Back Attcha! What are you questioning? n/t

[H2O Man]

80. The quote in question

came less than a month before Malcolm's death; hence, I suspect that it serves as a fair expression of his views in February of 1965. Malcolm was true to his beliefs, and had the courage of his convictions -- and that, of course, was why he was killed.

[KoKo]

83. we know....

now that we have done this before...and others have done it before that "Courage of Beliefs" is the death knell. It's dangerous.

But...whatever...we forge on ...doing what we can do. It's worth it...I keep telling myself.

No one has been calling my phone to offer me Lobby Money...so I guess I'm clean for now. I wonder though about the rest. lol's...sardonic.

[Number23]

84. Malcolm was true to his beliefs but he was also INCREDIBLY brilliant

And brave. He grew as an individual which is what all of us are supposed to do.

His interaction and growing disillusionment with the NOI contributed to the changes that he saw in his role, his growing respect for Dr. King and what he was accomplishing was also a major contributor. But I think he just grew as a man and as a leader.

About the same time he made the quote you referenced, he also made this one:

"I want Dr. King to know that I didn't come to Selma to make his job difficult. I really did come thinking I could make it easier. If the white people realize what the alternative is, perhaps they will be more willing to hear Dr. King." February 1965

He knew his position as "bad cop" to Dr. King's "good cop" and he was happy to play the role. What's funny is that towards the end of their respective lives, both men were rapidly approaching common ground with each other. I've often wondered if they were aware of that.

[H2O Man]

97. Right.

Malcolm's trip to Selma -- which was part of a tour of the south -- was historic. He had met King once previously, when he went to DC to monitor the Senate's filibustering on the Civil Rights Bill. King was also at the Senate, and the two posed for pictures together.

Back to the trip to Selma: Malcolm had noted that, at the time King was preparing to face incarceration, forces led by George Lincoln Rockwell were making threats. Malcolm sent Rockwell a note, and released copies to the media. He warned Rockwell that his people were no longer held in check by the NOI policy of non-engagement. Thus, if any harm came to King or his followers, Malcolm warned of a response.

Malcolm had three stops planned. The second was the address to the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee on February 4, 1965. Some of King's aides were concerned that Malcolm would incite the students. Andy Young and James Bevel were tasked with warning Malcolm not to incite. They wanted to review his planned speech. This was when Malcolm delivered what I consider to be one of his classic quotes: "Remember this: nobody puts words in my mouth."

Mrs. King also met with Malcolm. As both she and Martin later recounted, he was very polite to her. He was, of course, a perfect gentleman. He assured her he wasn't there to create problems, but to engage in creative tension, as you note.

It's important to note that between the chance meeting at the Senate, and Selma, the two were in frequent, though indirect, communication. This was channeled through an attorney in Chicago. Martin had begun to admire Malcolm's call for bringing Uncle Sam before the UN, for human rights abuses, rather than sticking to the context of domestic civil rights. It's fair to say that King was beginning to believe that Malcolm had answered the question that Alfred Camus had famously asked: "Can a system condemn itself?" Malcolm recognized the US could not bring about social justice on its own.

King's later speeches indicate that Malcolm had influenced him, at least as much as he had influenced Malcolm. A quote from Martin (November 11, 1967) is worthy of our consideration: "...I have found out that all I have been doing to correct this system in America has been in vain ....I am trying to get to the roots of it to see just what ought to be done ....The whole thing will have to be done away with."

They were both most honorable men.

[Number23]

106. Another lovely post. Thanks.

[H2O Man]

140. Malcolm's third planned stop

on the tour was with the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. He had, of course, spoke to supporters in Harlem, along with Fannie Lou Hamer, on 12-20-64. For years now, I've advocated that DUers take on the role of a modern MFDP. That's how liberal and progressive democrats could best exercise the type of creative tension that King advocated, in my opinion.

[H2O Man]

79. Check the date

of the quote.

[KoKo]

85. Maybe "in the final solution" it's all about realizing that "compromise" is the end solution...

and that the RADICAL WAYS will fall away to the "final solution" and that one doesn't expect to live to see that happen. It's a "dark thought." I don't want to be dark, here. But, one does wonder watching what has gone before ...what it all is ..in the end.

[Number23]

95. Now this is a post that actually makes sense.

Maybe "in the final solution" it's all about realizing that "compromise" is the end solution...and that the RADICAL WAYS will fall away to the "final solution" and that one doesn't expect to live to see that happen.

I think that you're absolutely right. I think that this is the lesson -- that compromise, give and take from BOTH sides of any conflict, is in fact the only solution. To peace, anyway. And you're absolutely right. It's a shame that most of the people doing most of the fighting won't live to see what they are fighting for.

[varelse]

94. thank you

you speak for this independent, progressive DU member as well. Bless you.

[H2O Man]

141. Thank you.

And I really do appreciate your kind message here. Very much.

[me b zola]

96. K&R

With much respect and appreciation.

[H2O Man]

142. Thank you,

with equal respect and admiration.

[JerseygirlCT]

101. I can no longer recommend, but thanks

another terrific post.

[H2O Man]

143. Thank you!

I appreciate your comment, more than a "recommend." A clown can erase a recommend with an unrecommend, but they can't erase your comment.

[burrowowl]

102. KICK! KICK!

Too late to recommend but READ IT and keep kicked!
H2O Man a REAL DEMOCRATE!

[burrowowl]

103. Read and KICK!

Love you H2O Man!

[H2O Man]

145. Thank you, very much!

It is nice to see so many of the people that I consider the best on DU, here on this thread. And none more so than you!

[riderinthestorm]

121. I'm in the western suburbs of Chicago. Been helping campaigns since forever.

Many of my friends and I are long time Dem helpers: phone banks, canvassing, voter registration drives, anti-war protests, LTTE writers, professional congressional pesterers.... I worked for Obama's campaigns since the very first one.

I got together with some of my long time activist friends this past August and you could be one of us at the bar.... I knew I was frustrated at the direction the Admin seemed to be going but hadn't counted on the depth of emotion from everyone else. This Admin has no idea how disillusioned their base is - many of us are the long term support they count on to do the heavy lifting for them at the grass roots level. I'm absolutely certain that I could not round up 10 people anymore to be there for any event right now.

This is Chicago where disagreement amongst Dem politicians is the norm... it's part and parcel of the "fun".

This isn't remotely funny anymore.

As usual, great post H2OMan. Thanks for this.

[H2O Man]

146. Well, if I was in the bar,

not only would you have had to listen to some Irish songs, but you would have had a designated driver!

It's funny: one person below stated that I avoid "arguing" with others here, because I don't think I can win. Perhaps it hasn't occured to them that I feel no need -- none -- to argue with people who are simply wrong. Or that when a wise man argues with a fool, you have two fools.

But talking politics with you in a bar? Ah, I'd love that.

[librechik]

124. kick

get back to the top where you belong!

:kick:

[H2O Man]

147. Thanks!

[hfojvt]

125. I don't see how anybody can "impose" on a message board

"Recently, I have noticed a disturbing increase in posts on this forum that strike me as going beyond advocating a moderate democratic agenda, and instead seem like attempts to impose a rigid, conservative democratic view."

How exactly does somebody or a group of somebodies "impose" on the rest of the group? If anybody wants to impose, it does not seem to be the anti-Kucinich people, but the pro-Kucinich people constantly seem to be calling for purges. "Silence any dissent from the progressive conventional wisdom, or any kicking at our progressive sacred cows."

I hate this business of questioning motives. Posts can be answered on their face without trying to play some spy game of "finding those who are not perfectly loyal"

"But I do question the motivation of those who seem intent upon discrediting liberal and progressive ideals, labeling them as unrealistic, and defining conservative democrat’s actions and inaction as being "the way.""

Either you can answer their arguments or you cannot. If somebody tries to discredit a liberal or progressive ideal, then they are either right or wrong. If they are wrong, you should be able to prove them wrong. To jump from an argument to a questioning of somebody's motives seeems to me a tacit admission that you cannot win the argument.

[ProSense]

126. I was just about to take issue with that statement.

Why is it okay to slam the other progressives who voted for the health bill, but suggest that Kucinich needs to be placed on a pedestal?

It's as if some want to claim the progressive mantle simply because they are loyal to Kucinich. It's bogus.

Argue on merit, present the facts and understand that progressives can criticize Kucinich too.

[H2O Man]

127. I took no stand

on Kucinich's position.

[hfojvt]

152. Kucinich is the latest battle - one of them

and seemed to be an easy way to distinguish between leftists (pro-Kucinich) and moderates (anti-Kucinich) although I am sure those groups are not rigidly correlated.

[H2O Man]

154. Perhaps I didn't make

myself clear: Again, in this "latest battle," I have not said a single word -- not one -- about either DK's position, or my opinion of it. Obviously, I am aware of it, and was not requesting your explanation.

[hfojvt]

158. you seemed to require an explanation and still do

What you said about DK or didn't say is not important to me. What I observe is that in these wars, one side seems more ready to impugn the motives or character of the other side. The pro-Kucinich people want the anti-Kucinich people to shut up, and/or leave or be escorted off the premises. In the debate over food stamps being used for soda purchases, it seemed to me that one side said "no" and the other side said "yes, and the people who say no are morally or intellectually defective".

Hence, while you did not weigh in on the Kucinich debates, you did weigh in on their (the pro-Kucinich side's) call to impugn the motives of people who seem insufficiently progressive.

[H2O Man]

128. Odd, that.

You "hate this business of questioning motives," yet display an uncanny skill -- not in questioning why I do not respond to each and every post I consider nonsense on DU, but with your insightful, "Either you can answer their arguments or you cannot. ....you should be able to prove them wrong. To jump from an argument to a questioning of somebody's motives seems to me a tacit admission that you cannot win the argument."

'Spect you don't see the irony there.

Perhaps you could provide me with the specific "arguments" that you have seen me "jump from"?

[hfojvt]

151. you is generic there, since you are not the only one questioning motives

or calling for purges or suggesting that there be trolls among us. Although in this specific case, you did question motives. Thus whether you have jumped from an argument is not relevant since you specifically suggested impugning people's motives.

For my part, I generally assume that somebody posts something for the purpose of stating something they believe is true, and prefer to engage them as such, even if such a belief might be naive. Sometimes I do wonder, when somebody posts something like "I am very angry with Obama and congressional Democrats" if that is what they are really feeling, or if that is what they want others to feel. Certainly I spent 8 years trying to get Republicans and independents upset with Bush and Congressional Republicans, but at the same time I also spent many years in the 1990s being upset with Clinton who was constantly trying to out-Republican the Republicans.

[H2O Man]

153. Way wrong.

You quoted me twice. That's not "generic." It is specific. It is relevant.

Again, on "questioning motives," it's a giggle that you do exactly what you accuse me of. And, for the record, I have no problem questioning the motives of anyone who is okay with the proposed erosion of women's reproductive rights, continuing to deny adults the right to marry who they love, and/or suggests that the US should continue the military occupation of Afghanistan or Iraq. That's just the short list.

I am not afraid to debate any intelligent person -- I just have never encountered an intelligent person who takes those positions.

After decades of employment in psychiatric social work, and being active for a heck of a lot longer in politics, I know that without a doubt there are people who say things they don't believe. And there are plenty of people who say things that are just plain wrong. To believe otherwise is something beyond being nauve.

[hfojvt]

157. I did exactly what I accused you of?

How so? I questioned your motives instead of debating you?

Yes, I quoted you twice, but the "you" I expected to be reading my post was also a larger crowd and not just you, but a group of people exemplified by what you wrote.

Here's one recent example

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6995956&mesg_id=6995956

"And I feel that the Republican brand being so tarnished is bringing a lot of people, ashamed to be a Republican, to this site thinking it's for all Democrats including the new ones who don't share our values and they go on the attack against liberals/progressives just as they did when they supported the GOP in the past... but now do it under the guise of our party's label."

Notice how he also impugns the motives of people who post here. And I would also note that my question to him/her was the same as I posed to you.

"Why can't you debate or persuade these moderates? Why does there need to be a purge? If you want to be an effective resistance, then you/we need as many members as possible. Even ones who don't always see eye to eye with you."

And it's the same question I was posing to the people who KNR these threads which question the bona fides of other DUers.

Another recent thread that made it to the top of the greatest page was this one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6987043&mesg_id=6987043

"A lot more of DU'ers are now opposed to a woman's right to choose and suggest that Democrats should back away from our defending women's reproductive rights than the community did in the past. I wish that wasn't so.

A lot more of DU'ers believe institutionalizing the insurance cartel's health care monopoly is somehow a "victory" for the people than the community did in the past. I wish that wasn't so.

A lot more of DU'ers believe that the death penalty is a good thing than the community did in the past. I wish that wasn't so.

A lot more of DU'ers believe that physical violence against children under the euphemism of 'spanking' is OK than the community did in the past. I wish that wasn't so."



Bascially he complains that "a lot more DUers disagree with me on a bunch of issues and I wish they would be forced to go away because I cannot possibly debate them or convince them to change their minds, or find any common ground with them. So I wish those with divergent opinions were not here."

and if I may quote you again

"I am not afraid to debate any intelligent person -- I just have never encountered an intelligent person who takes those positions."

That is symptomatic of the DU/liberal problem. When a liberal meets somebody they disagree with, they cannot debate with them and still respect them in the morning. They have no clue how to persuade them and really no interest in doing so, because it is so much more fun just to insult their intelligence and/or their character.


"A great deal of pseudo-liberal politics has always been about culture war. It has been about the fairly ludicrous claim that We are smarter and better than They are. But wouldn’t you know it? Because we love to mock average voters, we have little success in winning them over! Faced with people inclined to differ from us in some ways, we have no idea what to say or do—how to address their different impulses. Thanks to our powerful cultural arrogance—thanks to our own overpowering dumbness—we have no idea how to address their tendency toward different strokes.

We have no clue about how to persuade. We mainly know how to lodge insults. Their limbic brains aren’t working right! Every one is a redneck racist!"

http://www.dailyhowler.com/


At the end of Rocky III, Apollo and Rocky get in the ring to see who the better fighter is. I sorta wondered, can two friends really hit each other in the face for fun? I still doubt it, but it should be easy in a debate. Two people can disagree and exchange ideas and perspectives and nobody gets hurt. At least it should be possible.

But I seemed to have angered you, either in this thread or in previous discussions. Is this because you assume me to be an enemy of some sort or is it my own lack of social/persuasive skills? I often said that my social skills were the exact opposite of savoir faire - the ability to do or say the wrong thing in any situation.

[H2O Man]

159. First -- not at all.

You have not angered me by your responses in the least.

Second -- "Rocky" is fiction. I am a retired amateur boxer, who also trained and managed many, many real boxers, amateir and professional. Aside from a couple of the songs from the series of movies, I found them more painful to watch than a solid punch to the nose. So, instead of speaking about fiction I couldn't watch, I'll try to focus on something real.

In real life, I both sparred and fought people who I was friends with. In some cases, this involved friends who really were not good fighters, and I would go very easy in sparring. With my friends who were good fighters, we sparred competitively. In an actual fight, our friendship was suspended during the referee's instructions, and my focus was to destroy them. After they woke up, we could be friends again.

In a real sense, debate can be viewed as a form of verbal sparring. I enjoy debate, and engage in numerous debates with friends. Sometimes, just for the fun of it. With those without skills, I have no problem going easy. With my skilled friends, I enjoy serious give-and-take.

An argument -- and it's important to note that you spoke of arguing, rather than simple debate -- is more like a fight, than sparring. I do not come to DU to argue with people. Again, it has nothing to do with fear of conflict. Rather, it is simply a waste of time. I am fine with you thinking its of value, but I do not. While you view it in a limited context with only two possible options (see your first post), I know that there are more than two options.

Many DUers certainly hold opinions similar to your own, and I am fine with the fact that you disagree with what I say, and what I represent. Not a problem, at least for me. My OP was not directed at the hearts and minds of that group of people. It was directed to the segment of DUers who share the same basic beliefs and values that I expressed. And, even if we are a minority within the DU community, it remains the core group of democrats that I'm interested in conversing with. If others not within that group think I'm wrong, afraid of them, or not having the character to understand the finer points of Rocky movies, that's fine. They are welcome to those thinking, for I have no desire to go there.

[hfojvt]

160. my response was also directed at that core group of people

"My OP was not directed at the hearts and minds of that group of people. It was directed to the segment of DUers who share the same basic beliefs and values that I expressed."

and you took it as directed only at you, an attack on your courage or character. Such was never my intent

But it is the core group that exemplifies this Somerby quote

"We have no clue about how to persuade. We mainly know how to lodge insults. Their limbic brains aren’t working right! Every one is a redneck racist!"

Beyond having no clue about how to persuade is having no desire to go there. No desire to persuade. Because it is easier and more satisfying to question motives, character and intelligence than to try to persuade. Especially since most people are pretty stubborn in their beliefs.

I would like to see progressives win and advance their ideas (at least some of them), and, at least as important, see Republicans and conservatives be defeated. To do that I think we need to reach out and persuade and find common ground with people far to the right of the average DU moderate. But instead that core group seems to want to circle the wagons and silence or exile dissenting viewpoints. I think that's counterproductive.

[H2O Man]

161. Again, you quoted

my OP twice, and put each and every one of your comments solely in the context of responding to those quotes. There was not a single thing that you said that was not in this context. Being that your post was a direct response to my OP, and nothing else, it was clear that you were speaking to me.

[hfojvt]

165. yes, it was directed at you

I think I have conceded that all along

What I wrote before was "and you took it as directed only at you, an attack on your courage or character. Such was never my intent"

speaking to you versus speaking only to you. Presumably more than one person would be reading my reply, as Prosense demonstrated.

But I was talking about the idea involved in the quote, more than the person who wrote the quote.

As I began my second point.

"I hate this business of questioning motives."

That's what I was trying to discuss and that philosophy seemed to be exemplified by the quote that followed, but what I wrote was more about the idea than it was about you.

You, are a very thoughtful, informative and interesting writer. However when you encourage other DU progressives to go around questioning motives rather than answering argument, then I think that hurts us.

If somebody comes to DU and writes some rightwing talking point like "I support the FairTax" I don't think we are well served by having a bunch of DUers chime in with variations of "go back to Freeperville ya hugh moran". I think we are much better served if people respond with factual arguments such as http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/55

At least the latter choice has the potential to increase our coalition rather than trying to sift, purify and incidentally shrink it.

[Stinky The Clown]

144. Too late to R. Not too late for a standing ovation.

[H2O Man]

148. Well, thank you!

Very much appreciated.

[gleaner]

149. I admire your post ....

It is thoughtful and true. I am finding myself where you are, and I think we will be heading in the same direction in 2010. I can no longer give blanket support to people who call themselves "Democrats," when they are not supporting the best liberal and progressive ideas that the Democrats have.

I keep going back in my mind to my father's words on the subject. I asked him once when I was a kid if we were Democrats or Republicans. He said we were Democrats. I asked why and he told me that Republicans were the party of the rich people and we were never going to be rich so they would never be supportive of our interests. I asked him if Democrats ever acted the same way. He said they did, but not as much and that when I was old enough to vote I had to pay close attention to who I voted for to keep from electing people who didn't care enough about the common good.

I think we are now at a place where I have to watch that closer than ever.

[PufPuf23]

150. Great post H2OMan

I am but an occasional poster though a near daily reader at DU but you are in my Top 10 of reads not to miss.

We are of the same generation.

[Atticus]

155. Too late to rec, but thank you. Great post! nt

[Naturyl]

156. Too late to rec, but kicked up to the North Pole.

Awesome post. Thanks. :)

[KoKo]

164. It's up there...Good FRIDAY/WEEKEND stuff.......

[Agony]

162. Well put.

Peace,
Agony