What happened to the perfect being the enemy of the good?

[Stinky The Clown]

When some of us wanted single payer - or the largely undefined "public option" - we were told to not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. That was hammered home by the people who favored the president's wishes over the people's.

Fast forward to today. The people, in poll after poll after poll, have shown they favor the repeal of DADT and, in fact, favor gay marriage. With respect to DADT, we have a court ruling that many legal minds superior to those who post on DU say has, in fact, killed the law and that an appeal of that ruling is NOT required or mandated or in any way an impediment to simply accept ing the court ruling. Not perfect - the legislative overturning of the law would be the perfect - but pretty damned good.

I find it ironic that pretty much the same people who chastised us for not accepting the good over the perfect in getting behind the president's view of healthcare, are now arguing exactly the opposite on the same president's view of DADT.

How do you make that leap with any intellectual honesty? Really? How do you do that?

I may be dead wrong, but it seems to me the only commonality with those who argued against single payer and who now argue for waiting for a legislative solution to DADT is what the president wants, not what the people want.

[daylan b]

1. Any analysis of this situation

that does not include the politics of the upcoming mid-term elections and the triage that is going on in order to prevent a Republican tidal wave is highly flawed.

[SteppingRazor]

5. If that enters into Democrats' election calculus, then Democrats are idiots.

Solid majorities support the repeal of DADT, and have for quite some time:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020240-503544.html?tag=cbsContent;cbsCarousel


Other polls have shown support to be as high as 75 or 78 percent:
75 percent: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021104873.html

78 percent: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5/26/870107/-CNN-Poll:-78-support-gays-serving-openly-in-the-military

Support has narrowed as the election draws near, but given previous support levels, a lot of that opposition has to be very soft. It's damn near impossible to get 78 percent of this country to agree on anything. The fact that so many support this means that Democrats, far from running from it to get re-elected, should be screaming from the rooftops for DADT's repeal. And that's just the political analysis. Never mind the morality of the whole thing, which is obviously also on the progressive side in this issue.

[daylan b]

6. It's a mid-term, the "solid majority" isn't who they're worried about.

It's the "inflamed minority" they don't want to throw gasoline on. Mid-terms are all about voter turn out and giving the Republicans something that triggers all of the things they use to get people fired up (gays, activist judges, defense, etc.) would be VERY costly right now.

Book it, the administration will reverse their stance on this within a few months after the election.

I'm not defending it, it's not right. It is what it is.

[SteppingRazor]

8. I totally get that. But...

I think the "inflamed minority" is already burning out of control. Pouring gasoline on them is like tossing a gas can at the sun.

But with Democrats suffering from this enthusiasm gap -- which is very real -- an issue like this, which is popular with most people and would energize the Democratic base, seems ready-made for Democratic support.

[daylan b]

9. You make a good point, beyond that it's a judgement call.

[SteppingRazor]

10. Absolutely. I just think that, in this particular case, Democrats who run from DADT repeal...

are making a bad call.

[Recursion]

12. Did you ever see the poll that asked the question two different ways?

Something like 75% of Americans support allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

Something like 45% of Americans support allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military.

I don't think people know what they do and don't want.

[walldude]

18. Push polling... that stupid questionaire

they sent out to the military was filled with "loaded" questions. This is what is upsetting everyone. If you step back and look at all the administration has done it really seems like they are dead set against repealing DADT.

[Recursion]

14. The thing is, DADT repeal simply will not pass this Senate or any likely Senate in the near future

So waiting for Congress to act is essentially saying it's not going to happen.

I too would rather the legislature do its damn job. But they won't, so the courts have to.

[daylan b]

21. I don't expect it to pass the Senate

I expect Obama to withdraw the objection from the DOJ a few months after the election after 'further consideration'.

[polmaven]

39. And that has to include SCOTUS

Otherwise, the next plaintiff to get in front of a District Judge could be successful in having DADT reinstated, if that judge should find it constitutional. Only the SCOTUS can make it permanent. In order to get there, this decision needed to be appealed.

[riderinthestorm]

42. What gives you any impression this Supreme Court will find it unconstitutional?

I have no such faith in the Roberts court.

Obama has played a bad hand. He's risking GLBT civil rights on this Supreme court and that's unacceptable if he really believes that DADT is unconstitutional. Furthermore, he's gone even FARTHER and fought for a stay against the injunction while it's appealed!

Honestly, I also have no faith that the Congress will ever overturn DADT. They had a chance this summer and turned it down. Snowe and Collins' whine about waiting for that deeply flawed survey is bogus. The results of that survey will be spun any which way anyone wants it to go. If even 10% of the military doesn't want DADT to go away, you can bet McCain is going to go all filibuster to "protect" that 10% or some other bullshit.

[rucky]

30. 70% support a repeal. n/t

[daylan b]

32. Already addressed in two different replies. n/t

[bvar22]

37. Lets see what Harry Truman said about running from good policy during elections:

"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."--Truman

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[SteppingRazor]

2. I'm for single payer and against DADT. But I think you're making an apples-oranges comparison.

There's a difference between arguing among different versions of legislation (health care) versus arguing for legislation over judicial fiat.

That said, I think judicial fiat is fine, especially where overturning unconstitutional laws, or those that in any way quash civil rights. I just don't know that, in your argument, one thing necessarily follows from the other.

[zipplewrath]

3. He did fine

There are potential answers to his questions, but his point stands. There is suddenly the pedantic adherence to a justice department tradition in an attempt to achieve some sort of "pure" outcome. Letting the injunction stand may not be all the "clean" in the larger process, but it does achieve many of the ends everyone claims to want, while also allowing them to continue the appeals process.

[SteppingRazor]

4. True enough. n/t

[G_j]

7. well said nt

[Recursion]

17. Oddly enough, I have the same thing to say about this that I did about HCR: can you count to 60?

In this case, there's basically no chance of a repeal of DADT making it out of the Senate, and that situation is probably only going to get worse in a few months. Though I also go against the OP's main point, since I was for HCR and also for using the court decision as a way to kill DADT.

[zipplewrath]

20. I can, in a post election environment

Depending upon who wins and loses, there are counts that can be reached in the senate during a lame duck. After that, who knows.

[alc]

19. need to think long term

Part of the health reform "good" is that it's a start and it can be fixed. It the start never happens, the fixes never will and it's a long term fight to get to a good program. I'm against what we got but can accept this argument (actually I don't think what we got is good, but that's a different debate). Taking good now can lead to better.

While not appealing the DADT is good for the short term it gives future republican administrations the chance to say "you didn't fight for DADT because you thought it was unconstitutional, so we aren't going to fight for health reform because we think it's unconstitutional." Whether or not there is a future repub administration, and even if it's a bogus argument the long term differences between getting rid of DADT judicially vs. legislatively can be significant. It's not just DADT and health reform - it's a matter of showing respect for previous congresses and administrations and citizens just like you want respect from future administrations who disagree with you. I know respect for repubs is deservedly hard to come by around here but we need to open a dialog with citizens of all sides to get serious reform. This lets repub leaders talk up another wedge between "us" and "them" (not that a legislative change would stop the leaders but it would remove some arguments)

[sabrina 1]

41. What's good about mandated insurance and keeping the predatory

corrupt, criminal and deadly (44,000 dead Americans per year for lack of proper access to HC} middlemen, the Health Insurance Ind. who should have been prosecuted, NOT rewarded for their role in supposedly providing health care to the American people. They were entrusted with one of the most sacred trusts the American people could have given them. The health and well-being and the very lives, of American citizens. And they let them die, for profit.

There is nothing good at all about the fact that they are still in charge of people's life and death death decisions when we all know they profit more if people die quickly and we also know that they allow that to happen.

All we got was a bailout of that industry which was about to collapse due to unemployment, people dropping their health insurance because of other more pressing bills etc.

Do you really think any discussion of a real health care reform would have even been allowed if there wasn't an emergency in the health care profiteering business?

Already premiums are rising, they are refusing to cover sick children etc. etc. as if we didn't know this is what would happen. Also planning in raises premiums for the elderly. They got bailed out, if you're a Randian Capitalist I guess that is a good thing.

[zipplewrath]

44. Appeal is one thing

There are perfectly good reasons he can use for not appealing, mostly having to do with military readiness and continuity, especially considering the on going study and the two wars. But furthermore, there is no reason, other than pendantry, to pursue a suspension of the judges injunction.

[myrna minx]

31. +1 Exactly. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. The thing is, the judicial order can stop enforcement immediately,

while the legislature must still pass the law which strikes DADT from the books. DADT is the law, and can only be removed by legislation - however it does not need to be enforced or defended between the time it was deemed unconstitutional and the time it is repealed. All the DOJ has to do is say "OK, it's unconstitutional" and not appeal it, letting the judge's ruling stand until it is repealed.

[Iggo]

11. Wildly differing opinions of the definition of 'the good' is what happened. (n/t)

[walldude]

13. Well, this isn't about health care... so they have no horse in the race

I'm sure you have noticed that the only people espousing the "we must do this right" have their rights firmly in place. It's pretty easy to turn off any kind of empathy and look at this "pragmatically" when the only way it affects you is it makes your favored politician look like an ass.

Here's what is bothering me, after yesterdays thread by.. you know who, I noticed that there really are only about 5 posters who are just hammering away at the GLBT community and it's supporters. So far the DU poll shows about 8 to 1 in favor of the GLBT community but if you go into some of these threads the few who are opposed are so vehement and "prolific" you'd think it was half of DU.

It makes me wonder why they are doing it. I noticed one poster had just written something and was just copying and pasting it over and over in different threads. When I am in the minority opinion by a margin that big, I just give up. There is no point in fighting the tide. time will tell if I am right or wrong. So for the life of me I can't figure out why they would spend such an inordinate amount of time trying to convince the other 80% of DU how right they are. A sane person would step back and either just let it go or re-evaluate their position. So it begs the question, are they just nuts? Or do they have an agenda?

On edit: Shit, I keep meaning to tell you how great you are doing and how much I look forward to your posts. You are one of the people who keep me coming back.. Keep it up :toast:

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[jgraz]

45. Never call Bill Clinton an "ignorant" centrist.

He knew exactly what he was doing.

[QC]

16. What you are talking about is the ad hoc arguments that abound in these parts.

The truth is whatever serves the greater glory of party and leader at a given moment.

For those who know even a little bit of history, particularly that of 20th century totalitarianism, this is a very scary thing.

[laughingliberal]

22. K & R nt

[Javaman]

23. I strive for perfect so I can have good.

I have always hated the saying "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". Why? because it lowers the bar.

I don't know about all of you, but frankly, my parents always told me to try my best, because even if you don't attain all that you wanted, you still have something pretty damn good.

As I have written in past post, we aren't allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good, we are letting the good to be the enemy of the okay.

We continue to accept a lower set of standards just so we can walk away with "well, it's something and I guess that's better than nothing".

What have we become? We have become a nation so kowtowed to the point that we are thankful for scraps.

We no longer demand anything from our government, our representatives or our selves.

We, as a nation, have become a pathetic lot.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. While yours is a somewhat different argument, you're quite right.

In the case of health care, that's what most people argued, even as a certain group was haranguing about being happy with the good, no matter how close to "meh" that "good" may have been.

In the DADT argument, no one can see it being passed out of the Senate, so the court repeal is the best "good" we can get.

[Javaman]

26. We live in sad times. No matter how much "hope" is out there.

Cheers. :)

[riderinthestorm]

25. K and R. Absolutely true. nt

[TriMera]

28. K&R. Stinky, as always,

you've hit the nail on the head. Thanks.

[jgraz]

29. Aw, Stinky, you just need to COME TO GRIPS WITH THE APPARENT DADT CONTRADICTION....

:rofl:

[Stinky The Clown]

35. Grip "this"

:wink:

:hi:

[TheKentuckian]

33. "Pragmatism" was always a line of shit Stinky. It is what some of say it is a reassuring term for

abdication of principle for political expedience or the appearance thereof.


It is a "magic" word meant to white wash any real life action and frame the action as the best an only practical option.

Amazing how consistently "sensible" policy that exposes working and poor folk's throats to the knife turns out to be isn't it?

It's always ever so "practical" to turn over every resource to the vulture class on the packs of the poor.

It's always two faced bullshit. Gotta stand with the rule of law and stand up an appeal of an obviously unconstitutional law but justice, schmustice when the rich and powerful are on the line.

Its public health insurance plan available to everyone to hold the insurance industry accountable is a casualty of "progress" but an (much, much smaller) escalation was PROMISED during the campaign. WEREN'T YOU PAYING ATTENTION?!? MAYBE YOU'D PREFER PRESIDENT PALIN!!11!!!!1!

The sole purpose is to simply justify any outcome. If there is no official policy then the tendency is to shut the fuck up until the talking points are passed out or occasionally to take a "centrist" position and hope they don't have to walk it too far. Having been burnt, the tendency is toward silence till told what to opine.

24/7 nonsense and spin seemingly never landing on what is best for the people.

A moral compass like Jack Sparrow had in Pirates of the Caribbean, it points to wherever they want to go.

[frustrated_lefty]

34. Dammit, there are no ponies in the 11th dimension!!!!!1111!!!

[Petrus Romanus]

36. Wouldn't that logic support a claim that

those who hold the opposite views on both issues are equally hypocritical?

Personally, I don't see a conflict between any two views on either issue. Regarding healthcare, Team Obama supported what they felt was the strongest workable reform package. Regarding dadt, they support what they feel is the most aggressive workable timetable for incorporating openly gay troops--and whether you buy their argument that ending dadt would require massive preparation is another matter entirely. In both situations (as in so many others) their constraint is what they believe are the practical limits, in terms of politics or policy.

[Zenlitened]

38. K&R. -n/t

[dbt]

40. How do you avoid being TS'ed for such temerity?

:evilgrin:

[Stinky The Clown]

43. I survive on my wit, charm, and disarmingly engaging style.

[BzaDem]

46. More specifically: Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, when the good is a legal option.

The statement holds with something like healthcare, where the "good" option is perfectly legal. But not here, where the "good" option is not consistent with the rule of law.

In this case, the "good" outcome you discuss violates the Constitutional command that the President take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Not appealing a ruling throwing out a law when an appeals court already upheld the constitutionality of said law cannot possibly be consistent with "faithfully executing the laws."

To put it another way, if your outcome would allow a President Palin to not appeal a ruling throwing out Social Security, your outcome is legally flawed.

[Stinky The Clown]

47. PLEASE prove your assertion that there is a *requirement* to appeal

*Thousands* of minor rulings go unappealed. Many legal minds say there is no need here.

[BzaDem]

49. Can you find a single example where the statute in question was already UPHELD by an appeals court?

No one has been able to provide that to me. In the HIV case and national parks case, the statutes in question had NO appeals court ruling upholding them (and precedent actually weighed against them being Constitutional). In the DADT case, an appeals court ALREADY upheld the statute, just last year. Appeals courts trump lower courts.

I already cited the Constitution, which says that the laws must be faithfully executed. Refusing to appeal when a higher court ALREADY held the law Constitutional is not consistent with faithful execution of the laws (a Constitutional command). Just like assassination of American citizens abroad is unconstitutional, because that wouldn't be consistent with the Due Process clause.

[riderinthestorm]

48. Furthermore, why did they pursue the stay on the injunction?

You can assert the DOJ purity test til the cows come home but pursuing the stay indicates their real intentions are beyond legal purity.... That's just plain vindictive. In which case, I'd stipulate that Stinky's point remains a valid one.

The DOJ IS pursuing legal "perfection" and it's not good. Any way you look at it imho.

[BzaDem]

50. I'm not defending the DOJ per se. I'm defending their decision to appeal. I oppose the stay request.

There is nothing that requires a request for a stay. But in this case, where an appeals court already upheld the law, the Constitution (specifically, the take care that the laws be faithfully executed clause) requires the appeal.

[riderinthestorm]

51. Sounds very contradictory to this non-lawyer.

Frankly, I see and understand the nuances you have faithfully put forward in support of Obama's DOJ but surely even you can agree that the stay request is over the edge.

I'm deeply troubled by it. And it casts the Admin and it's DOJ in a bad light - ever so much more so than usual. Your positions always default to an Obama support role in regards to the GLBT community but my instinct (along with this latest maneuver) tells me there's deep conflict here about DADT and some slimy maneuvering underfoot.

Thanks for a frank convo. Peace.

[BzaDem]

52. Yes, I agree with you about the stay. My position does not always default to an Obama support role.

I think this place has become so divided that when people defend Obama's actions, others assume they are only defending Obama's actions because of personal adoration of Obama (rather than a simple defense of the action itself, regardless of who made it).

I'm not defending Obama as a person, and I am not defending the DOJ as an organization. I am specifically defending a single decision they made, because the consequences of the opposite decision would have real and devastating consequences for the rule of law and our Constitution. It has nothing to do with like or dislike of Obama or his DOJ.

[readmoreoften]

53. Well, first of all, they have no intellectual honesty.

All they are is spin and fear-mongering. Oh, and excuses.