The Best Thing About Being Progressive is Diversity of Thought: Embrace That

[sheshe2]

Posted on January 17, 2014 by Milt Shook

snip



But consider this concept. If a progressive disagrees with another progressive on something, then what? They have their progressive membership card revoked? Is everything else they say thereafter wrong? Apparently, you are not allowed to like them anymore. Besides being middle school-level behavior, such a narrow-minded creed is certainly not “progressive,” or “liberal” in nature. one of the great things about being a liberal is our love of tolerance. Yet, there is a small-but-significant group of (almost always white and rarely working class) self-described “progressives” who do this sort of thing all of the time. They appoint themselves as the sole arbiter of what is “progressive” or “liberal,” and they adopt an absolutist stance against anyone who doesn’t fit into that very narrow frame. Because I don’t follow what they think my position should be on the NSA non-story, I can’t be in their “club,” and I’m a “liberal traitor” or some such nonsense.

Well, screw that.

One of the great things about being a liberal is that I’m allowed to have compassion for people. To right wingers, compassion is for wimps; for me, it’s part of who I am. I want everyone in this country to have access to a job, a roof over their head, nutritious food to eat, clean water to drink and access to health care when they need it. I want us all to breath clean air and to adapt to and try to reverse climate change, if possible. I want equal justice for everyone, regardless of their life circumstances. I want to end wars for anything except to secure basic human rights for all people. I want everyone to have the freedom and opportunity to create a life they want for themselves. In other words, I’ a liberal. VERY liberal.



Once again, the hallmark of being a progressive is in our ability to accept the inherent diversity of thought on our side of the aisle. It’s simply a fact that a liberal in rural Kentucky isn’t necessarily going to have the same perspective as a a liberal in Brooklyn. A liberal black farmer in Mississippi isn’t going to see things the same as a liberal black man who grew up in Southeast DC. To expect that is the height of absurdity. We’re not all the same, and to expect us to think the same way about everything is immaturity at its zenith.

There’s another aspect of this to consider, as well. There simply are not enough people out there who identify as “liberal” or “progressive” to give us a majority on any issue. We need to align ourselves with reasonable people who disagree with us on some issues. It’s why we align ourselves with the Democratic Party; because we can’t do it on our own. Instead of using the word “centrist” as a pejorative and calling people who disagree with you “low information voters” or even “stupid,” sit and listen to these people instead, and find out what they think and why they think the way they do. Most of them actually make sense. And since they live the issues we supposedly care about, they might very well know more than we do about them. They may also have some great innovative ideas for fixing a problem.

snip

The best thing about being a progressive is our desire to want to fix problem and make society better. But the second-best thing is our ability to absorb all points of view, and formulate solutions from that.

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/the-beauty-of-being-progressive-diversity-of-thought/#more-1640

[frazzled]

1. It's going to be kind of fun

to hear the angry tirades against this fairly rational plea for tolerating diversity.

[DonViejo]

31. I'l join you...

with or without butter?

[sheshe2]

45. I'll take mine straight up...hold the butter!

Don!

[Armstead]

33. Yes let's call for tolerance from fellow "liberals" while insulting them

Very rational

[sheshe2]

53. Well, I think we must open ourselves to everyone's ideas.

Instead of using the word “centrist” as a pejorative and calling people who disagree with you “low information voters” or even “stupid,” sit and listen to these people instead, and find out what they think and why they think the way they do. Most of them actually make sense. And since they live the issues we supposedly care about, they might very well know more than we do about them. They may also have some great innovative ideas for fixing a problem.

Armstead, we are all the people. Our party embraces diversity. So it should be. We are not the party of one voice, we are the party of everyone's voice.

[Armstead]

70. Terms are always difficult

Diversity is fine. The problem is there is not really a lot of diversity in the mainstream political conversation today.

And thus terms like liberal and progressive have become so generic that they are meaningless.

In the late 60's, the "new left" demonized the concept of the "liberals" of that era, because of the hard-core left of that era wanted very dramatic change, while the liberals were seen as too moderate and supportive of the status quo.

Today, many of the moderate positions of those "liberals" are actually branded as "far left" today. What is currently called "centrist" is what would have been considered conservative before.

That's how far the spectrum -- in both parties -- has shifted to the right.

Single payer health care -- or even a public option -- was totally shut out of the official debates over health care reform. "Too far to the left, too radical." My God, what would have happened if something like Medicare or Sociasl Security were proposed today?

In the 60's, the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few corporations and the small percentage of obscenely wealthy individuals we have today would have been thought of as inconceivable. Many of the accepted rules of economic and political behavior today would have been considered beyond the pale.

So perhaps those of us who are considered "the far left" -- which is just the equivalent of "moderate liberals" of 50 years ago -- feel the need to get a little vociferous at times, just to be heard.

It's a confusing, screwed up situation all the way around.

[sheshe2]

76. Strange times...

yet this President is for all the people not you and me alone. He has had to fight every step of the way to get anything passed.

He is a President not a Monarch or a God. Their are rules to follow. Laws to follow.

He has a pen to sign the laws that are passed to his desk. There is no magic wand involved. It does not exist and never will.

As for...

"Single payer health care -- or even a public option -- was totally shut out of the official debates over health care reform. "Too far to the left, too radical."

It was for many, that's why it never would have passed this F**KED up congress. I believe that we got the best deal we could at that time. And it is damn well making a difference!

[Luminous Animal]

104. In regards to single payer... The fact that it would not have passed does not mean that it should

have not been part of the conversation. Ideas take time to foment and grow on the national consciousness. It is up to our liberal representatives to lead and plant the seed of a progressive idea and let it take root in the national consciousness.

Leaders help create the conditions for a critical mass to allow progressive policy to happen. This is why FDR and LBJ were able to create lasting institutions that were based on the concept of the public's responsibilities to each other rather than the very very libertarian notion that individuals rely on the private market as we are seeing Democrats advance that notion. I.e., private retirement accounts, weakening Social Security, and mandating purchasing private medical insurance.

[sheshe2]

117. Yet, Luminous Animal

how do you know that it was not? I am not trying to fight, yet we were not there. None of us were privy to what went on.

Will you admit that this President has no back up from congress? That they declared him a one term President from the get go. They despise and obstruct him at every turn.

He could have done so much more without all of the hate. Yet I for one am not ruling out the next few years.

It is late and I really have to go.

I wish you a good night.

[Armstead]

139. Bingo, nail on head

[Armstead]

116. I dont recall saying its all Obamas fault

he is just one cog in the wheel.

but if we all just decide to be complacent and agreeable and continue to give him and all if the other politicians who claim to represent us a free pass, then we will continue to backslide into a new Gilded Age.

[Egalitarian Thug]

2. You want, but don't support any measure to make it happen.

All ideas are not equal and tolerance of those that are flat wrong is not progressive, it's just dumb.

Your opinion that our illegal and immoral surveillance state is a non-story is just that, your opinion and you're welcome to it, but that doesn't make it right and that's the step that too many seem to be unable to take.

Lots of people believe the religious nonsense that was "debated" yesterday, and they're free to believe it, but they do not have a right to impose their ignorance on society at large, nor to insist that their fantasies are given equal footing with what we have learned through science. You might believe that abortion is wrong, fine, but again, personal opinions do not confer any right to impose one's belief on others.

We can go on and on with issue after issue where, sometimes many, people share a belief that is simply wrong, and those issues "tolerance", or more accurately acquiescence, is actually harmful.

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. Did you miss the part about ...

They appoint themselves as the sole arbiter of what is “progressive” or “liberal,” and they adopt an absolutist stance against anyone who doesn’t fit into that very narrow frame.

as not being very progressive or liberal?

[delrem]

29. I'm in love with Faux News "liberals" too.

No way I'd "impose" my disagreement with the label "liberal" or "progressive" being applied anyway that spinmeisters see fit, and that's just because I'm a true "progressive liberal" ....

And the beauty of my assertion is that nobody can call me on it without proving themselves to be anti-liberal anti-progressive wankers. What a lovely world I live in, "sunshine lollipops and rainbows everywhere, when I'm self-serving..."

[Egalitarian Thug]

32. We're not talking about frames, nor labels.

Acquiescing to beliefs based on error hurts everyone, to no one's benefit.

There are absolutes, though not many. If you believe you have a right to force a woman to bear an unwanted child, you are not a liberal, period. That is just one of those quintessentially illiberal stances for which there is no compromise, it is simply wrong, no exceptions.

[delrem]

41. But I heard that in politics words and promises are just meaningless sounds

signifying nothing. Isn't that just what's cool about politics, that people can support secret drone wars and still be "progressive peaceniks"? That people can support cutting food stamps for the poorest and still be Jeezly bipartisan do-gooders? That people can support secret courts using secret evidence to convict citizens "renditioned" from streets all across the planet, at home and abroad, and still be "progressive"? That people can support a secret plan to secretly spy on *their ownselves*, calling whistleblowers treasonous, and still be called not just "progressive" but "sane"? and on and on...

It's just lovely living in a post-Orwellian linguistic dystopia.

[Egalitarian Thug]

49. "a post-Orwellian linguistic dystopia". I think you've correctly identified it right there.

It's just like that whole "Big Tent" fallacy. There are a few absolute truths and there are a few incompatible positions for which no compromise is possible, even with people willing to compromise. Abortion is the easiest to me because of the obvious dichotomy between the positions.

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. I guess you missed the whole point of the OP ...

Which was: That no one wants or needs you, or anyone else to define what is the appropriately "progressive" or "liberal" view on any topic. You have your opinion, just as every person has theirs.

Purity tests, which are based on your opinion what is appropriately "progressive" or "liberal" is far closer to "authoritarian" than "progressive" or "liberal."

And further, a less than appropriately "progressive" or "liberal" position (based on your opinion of what is appropriately "progressive" or "liberal&quot on one topic, does not mean that someone is not "progressive" or "liberal", it just means you disagree on that topic.

[delrem]

55. No, I *totally* understood the point of the OP.

The *only* point of the OP was to co-opt the term "progressive", so as to render it meaningless.
Which perfectly suits you, the OP, and every centrist third-way bi-partisan spinmeister on the planet.
Too bad every one of you centrist third-way bi-partisan spinmeister's spent the last several years dissing "progressives", and "leftists", isn't it?

eta: sorry, because I agree with the Egalitarian Thug on this score, I mistook your post as being a response to me. C'est la vie...

[1StrongBlackMan]

56. News flash ...

you do not get to define what is, or is not appropriately "progressive" or "liberal", for me or anyone else, other than yourself. Period.

[PowerToThePeople]

59. That is complete bullhockey.

[1StrongBlackMan]

62. Am I to now ...

bow to your authority, as the arbitrator of all things appropriately progressive/liberal.

Do you understand how offensive that idea is to any thinking person?

[PowerToThePeople]

67. You misinterpret my meaning

I never claimed I was "the arbitrator of all things appropriately progressive/liberal."

I would claim the "club" is democratic in nature, in that, if most "progressives" think certain views are not progressive, then they likely are not progressive. A minority opinion does not win a place in the club.

[VanillaRhapsody]

102. but that is ONE issue....are you going to toss em one by one on each one's individual

minority status on ONE of those issues?

[PowerToThePeople]

124. there is probably some threshold

It likely varys from person to person. It is not set in stone. Some issues have more weight than others. But, once the line is crossed, a progressive liberal you are not. If that is something you want to claim, you better re-examine your views.

[1StrongBlackMan]

123. at's bullpuckey ...

So does one need to be 100% pure, 90% pure, or will 51% pure win a place in the club?

[delrem]

64. News flash: I *totally* understand the point of the OP.

Which is to co-opt the term "progressive" to the third-way, centrist, bi-partisan and essentially right-wing cause, so as to render the term meaningless.

It's just too sad for third-way, centrist, bi-partisan and essentially right-wing folk that they've spent the past 6 years hippie-bashing, progressive-bashing, leftist-bashing, at every single opportunity, and that these third-way, centrist, bi-partisan and essentially right-wing folk have no intention of changing anything of their actual positions except for the label they want to co-opt for themselves. It's too sad for them because it puts their intent to co-opt the label "progressive" in a very very bright light.

I also *totally* understand why the third-way, centrist, bi-partisan and essentially right-wing folk want to relabel their product by co-opting the label of their progressive-left opponents. I'm sure that if they could buy the name 'Progressive' and trademark and copyright it then they'd have already done it, and taken the progressive movement to court for breaching their property rights. (Just sayin' ....)

[1StrongBlackMan]

65. Okay. eom

[Egalitarian Thug]

57. So, you are saying you agree that all opinions are equal?

Because that's what this idiotic piece boils down to.

Trying to conflate one's personal understanding of right and wrong with political party affiliation is the real point behind this, and I think you know that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. Actually ...

All opinions ARE of equal value to the person holding the opinion, and those that agree with that opinion, and of lesser, to no, value to those that disagree.

Trying to conflate one's personal understanding of right and wrong with political party affiliation is the real point behind this, and I think you know that.

And surely you realize that exactly what you are doing.

[Egalitarian Thug]

69. "To the person holding the opinion", you said it yourself. This OP proposes that

either we must all acquiesce to any opinion, or that there is no such thing as objective truth. Either way, it's just plain wrong.

I understand that the Blue Team Cheer Squad is going through a rough patch and feel the need for a self-affirming circle jerk, so I'm going to withdraw, unless you think there is actually a point to this.

There's a marked difference between debate, the contest of ideas, and incessant brow-beating. I think you are one of the debaters, but this thread is for and about the others.

[1StrongBlackMan]

125. I think you have misinterpreted the OP ...

I that she is not forcing his views on anyone rather he is resisting having the opinions of other foisted off onto him.

You know ... this argument sounds/feels a lot like the conservative "moral relativism" critique of the Left ... that there is one set of knowable, "objective truth."

This appears to be another place where left meets right and it's clear that there really is such a this as the "authoritarian left", that has no problem with authoritarianism, so long as they get to define what others are to think/say/think.

[PowerToThePeople]

127. who is the authoritatian?

Those saying x is not progressive or those saying you must accept x as proggressive.

[1StrongBlackMan]

129. I would say those are saying the same thing ...

But the OP is not saying, either.

[PowerToThePeople]

131. they don't say the same thing. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

138. But that's the thing ...

you (i.e., those arguing the point) are not saying "X is not progressive"; you are saying, "YOU are not (a) progressive because you believe/don't believe X." And your expecting others to cow to that is authoritarianism.

On the other hand, liberalism, in general, and the Democratic Party, in particular, has always been about inclusion ... seeking common ground to advance our mutual agenda ... so yes, saying one must be inclusive, in order to be progressive/liberal, is an accurate statement. That does not mean, however, that one must believe (everything, or even a lot) as I do, in order to be progressive/liberal.

[Armstead]

144. Part of the problem is labeling..especially when there are so many issues

I think part of the tension arises because we tend to expect people to fall into a certain category on everything.

That's one of the reason the previous liberal coalition broke up in the late 60's. For example, many blue-collar people who may be socially conservative on issues like abortion but economically liberal were forced to choose which "team" they were on. And the positions were misrepresented. That led to such things as the Religious Right and Reagan Democrats.

Over the following decades ideological boxes were created that people were (are) expected to choose on everything.

Over time, it became distorted. Like many people believe that if you are a Christian you also have to believe in free-market conservative capitalism, and that Jesus was a Capitalist.

It continues to chafe because people who have aligned on the liberal "team" may disagree on a lot of specifics. I for example, am pretty far on the leftward side of the spectrum on economics and power. But I'm also more of a libertarian on an issue like gun control. (Not an NRA type, but tending to believe that guns are a symptom rather than a cause of violence, etc...)

I care a lot more about those economic issues, so I don't get involved in arguments about gun control with fellow liberal/progressives. But on economic issues, I do get worked up. And i get impatient with what I perceive as "liberals" who too easily accept or support positions that are more conservative.

No easy answers, but I guess I think if we focus more on the content of specific issues, and less on categorizing each other, we'd be better off.

[1StrongBlackMan]

145. I completely agree ...

labeling is a juvenile attempt to force people into boxes that only the most disengaged person would willingly accept.

But that said ... I take heart in that I believe very little of this labeling is sincere. I think it is more about attempting to divide, ahead of 2014/2016; than anything else.

IMO, we (on DU) spend far too much energy on the labeling, when seeking commonality is what will get us all where we wish to be. (But then, again, I get called a "cheer leader" for that opinion.

[Armstead]

151. I think when push comes to shove the commonality wins out

During primary season, for example, the supporters of Candidate A will beat up here on supporters of Candidate B, and vice versa. But generally once the primaries are settled, supporters of both candidates will become more unified and focus more on beating the GOP opponent.

I do think, however, that there are also deeper ideological schisms over issues that go beyond party politics and individual politicians. Those differences cause a lot of friction too.

But I think the key there is that -- while having strong disagreements over the substance of issues, or the performance of a particular politician -- that it not get personal between posters.

There are people I have had strong disagreements with on DU over the years. But as long as it remains civil and the attitude is "disagreement among friends" without getting personal ("You're a jerk because you support.....&quot it can just be healthy and constructive discussion.

At least I TRY to follow that principle..... ')

[1StrongBlackMan]

154. +1 ...

to all of that.

And I hope that my strong disagreement over the substance of issues, or the performance of a particular politician will never drive me to be blinded to the general direction that our commonality represents.

[sheshe2]

79. The point!

Once again, the hallmark of being a progressive is in our ability to accept the inherent diversity of thought on our side of the aisle. It’s simply a fact that a liberal in rural Kentucky isn’t necessarily going to have the same perspective as a a liberal in Brooklyn. A liberal black farmer in Mississippi isn’t going to see things the same as a liberal black man who grew up in Southeast DC. To expect that is the height of absurdity. We’re not all the same, and to expect us to think the same way about everything is immaturity at its zenith.

It's called diversity!

[Egalitarian Thug]

81. And once again you pretend that those "diverse perspectives" are equal. They are not and

that is the point.

Enjoy your party.

[Rex]

82. This is one of those 'buyer beware' moments that I think a lot of the oldtime

DUers already get loud and clear.

[demosincebirth]

44. +100

[sheshe2]

71. I for one have no clue what you are tossing at me.

Lots of people believe the religious nonsense that was "debated" yesterday, and they're free to believe it, but they do not have a right to impose their ignorance on society at large, nor to insist that their fantasies are given equal footing with what we have learned through science. You might believe that abortion is wrong, fine, but again, personal opinions do not confer any right to impose one's belief on others.

Where do I mention abortion and that it is wrong, where was that stated? What are you talking about?

The point the whole point of this OP is..

"Once again, the hallmark of being a progressive is in our ability to accept the inherent diversity of thought on our side of the aisle. It’s simply a fact that a liberal in rural Kentucky isn’t necessarily going to have the same perspective as a a liberal in Brooklyn. A liberal black farmer in Mississippi isn’t going to see things the same as a liberal black man who grew up in Southeast DC. To expect that is the height of absurdity. We’re not all the same, and to expect us to think the same way about everything is immaturity at its zenith."

Glad to see you are the decision maker of what is right and what is wrong for us all.

We are talking about "Democratic" beliefs here. I am female and ProChoice. You make no sense.

[freshwest]

3. Yes, I read this a little while back. Thanks for posting it. n/t

[sheshe2]

8. Fresh! Thanks~

[kcr]

4. From a blog called pleasecutthecrap

"But the second-best thing is our ability to absorb all points of view, and formulate solutions from that." No, I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Some things need to be rejected outright.

[sheshe2]

7. Yup!

Judge a book by it's cover, don't bother with the content.

What exactly, other than the blog name do you have an issue with..

This...

But consider this concept. If a progressive disagrees with another progressive on something, then what? They have their progressive membership card revoked? Is everything else they say thereafter wrong? Apparently, you are not allowed to like them anymore. Besides being middle school-level behavior, such a narrow-minded creed is certainly not “progressive,” or “liberal” in nature. one of the great things about being a liberal is our love of tolerance.

Go for it kcr, reject it outright. The Repukes have been doing that all along, Obama says it and supports it! Then the answer is no.

The whole point of the OP is that we need to work together.

"But the second-best thing is our ability to absorb all points of view, and formulate solutions from that."

[kcr]

9. Yup, heaven forbid I crack a joke n/t

[Armstead]

35. You're intolerant bullies -- Let's be tolerant and work together

There's a cognitive disconnect going on there

[1StrongBlackMan]

54. Yes ...

it's far better to let others define your belief system.

[Rex]

80. Please cut the crap so we can be tolerant to each other!

Won't you think of the children?

[Jamaal510]

5. This thread is probably going to sink fast. eom

[sheshe2]

17. I hope not, Jamaal!

[Armstead]

36. Sink? Hell this kind of post is catnip for all sides on DU

[Cofitachequi]

6. I don't want to think different from anyone else.

Wouldn't it be easier if everyone just agreed with me about everything?

There wouldn't be any fights and, it would free up a lot of the pages for pictures of kitties, or some of those photoshopped pictures with sharks jumping out of the water to bite stuff.

[PowerToThePeople]

10. This guy approves of your "non-story" too

Nice company you keep.

[sheshe2]

12. Really?

All you got out of the OP was Snowden? Wow!

[PowerToThePeople]

16. It is the specific diversity brought up. n/t

[sheshe2]

20. Actually there were a lot of things that were brought up.

It's about diversity. Our collective ideas working for a solutions to the issues.

This is not about Snowden!

[PowerToThePeople]

22. NSA and ACA were brought up in linked article

I am on the fence on Insurance mandate. In theory, I HATE IT. But, it may work out to be not as bad for the insured as I feared. Time will tell.

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. LOL ...

[progressoid]

153. But isn't Snowden (and his supporters) part of our diversity?

From the OP...

Once again, the hallmark of being a progressive is in our ability to accept the inherent diversity of thought

[freshwest]

21. Cheney is not mentioned in the article. n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

103. It's the new Guilianism....

A noun a verb and Edward Snowden is the new mantra

[sheshe2]

106. Spot on!

Thanks VR!

[PowerToThePeople]

130. you guys never stop do you

The ..... runs deep.

Your group are the only ones that ever bring up snowden et al.

[Aristus]

11. K&R.

[sheshe2]

13. My dear Aristus!

So good to see you.

Thanks~

[Aristus]

15. You too, sheshe2!

[Rex]

14. Yet some are so intolerable to others opinions, it makes ya wonder.

nt.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. Great OP ...

Thanks for posting it. It says everything that I have thought for quite a while; but did pot have the words to express.

I'm wondering how soon this will fall off the board. I suspect shortly after I click "post my reply", because very few will have anything to say.

[sheshe2]

25. Probably, 1SBM.

Yet~ we will see.

Thanks, it was a great article. And wow I read more of Milt Shook's blogs. All spot on!

Thanks and you are welcome!

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. Yeah ...

I got to reading some of his blog, too. And I liked what I read.

[sheshe2]

37. Well~

1SBM!

[Cha]

87. Milt Shook's "Please Cut the Crap".. has a had

a pretty good update of .. President Obama's Accomplishments over the years.. and now for 2014.. Categorized With Citations

President Obama is Progressive. Here Are 235 Examples of Progress So Far..

Here’s What He’s Done

Returned The Executive Branch To Fiscal Responsibility

snip//

. Within his first week, he signed an Executive Order ordering an audit of government contracts, and combating waste and abuse. http://1.usa.gov/dUvbu5

2. Created the post of Chief Performance Officer, whose job it is to make operations more efficient to save the federal government money. http://n.pr/hcgBn1

3. On his first full day, he froze White House salaries. http://on.msnbc.com/ewJUIx

4. He appointed the first Federal Chief Information Officer to oversee federal IT spending.http://www.cio.gov

5. He committed to phasing out unnecessary and outdated weapons systems. To that end, he also signed the Democratic-sponsored Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act, which attempted to put a stop to waste, fraud and abuse in the defense procurement and contracting system. http://bit.ly/hOw1t1 http://bit.ly/fz8GAd

So Much More @ PCTC..
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

A realist, 1StrongBlackMan~

[sheshe2]

107. Bingo!

You scored on that one, Cha!

[Cha]

114. I love Shook!

she~

[sheshe2]

115. Me too!

He is on my favorites list! I read lots of good stuff there!

Cha!

[Hekate]

24. KnR, Sheshe.

Just a little bump back to the top.

[sheshe2]

26. Love ya Hekate!

How are you?

[Hekate]

30. Doing okay. Kind of hard to type with a dog on my lap, though :-)

She's a little sweetie, a sturdy 15 pounds of Lhasa-Poo, and she decided she had to be here.

Yeah, other than waiting for rain, it's good....

[Cha]

27. Milk Shook of "Please Cut the Crap"!!

I adore him.. thank you, she!

"Once again, the hallmark of being a progressive is in our ability to accept the inherent diversity of thought on our side of the aisle. It’s simply a fact that a liberal in rural Kentucky isn’t necessarily going to have the same perspective as a a liberal in Brooklyn. A liberal black farmer in Mississippi isn’t going to see things the same as a liberal black man who grew up in Southeast DC. To expect that is the height of absurdity. We’re not all the same, and to expect us to think the same way about everything is immaturity at its zenith."

[sheshe2]

39. Cha!

Good to see you!

You picked the exceptional quote! It is indeed spot on.

And this~

" Diversity is our strength; use it."

[Cha]

51. " Diversity is our strength; use it." Yes,she! And, that on the Whole

is directed to all of America!

[delrem]

34. So "leftist" and "progressive" aren't dirty words for "centrists" anymore?

My, how things change when "centrists" want to co-opt the progressive left's vocabulary without actually supporting the actual progressive left's political principles and actions. The more things change the more they stay the same...

[Rex]

38. ^^^^THIS^^^^

nt.

[delrem]

47. I'm shuddering in RAGE at the blatancy of it. nt

[Rex]

48. I would be too if this was not SOP for a certain group that posts here.

They only love us when they need us, otherwise we might as well not exist.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

61. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ thank god ^^^^^^^^^^^^

thought I was in The Twilight Zone The Libertarian Underground for a minute.

[Rex]

73. LOL!

It is funny watching people push tolerance, that appear to have none whatsoever. I think the BOG ban list kinda contradicts what the OP is saying. OR I GUESS those people were just intolerant to tolerance. GO fig.

Thankfully the site owners designed DU to be for liberal people wanting to have honest discussions.

[sheshe2]

89. It's a group not a forum Rex.

A safe haven.

Sorry you don't understand that the groups on DU have rules to abide by. Take it up with the administrators if you have a problem with it.

Your snark snark snicker snicker doesn't phase me. My skin is thicker than that!

You asked for it~

[Rex]

94. Of course I have, you brush me off with your tolerance.

But then I knew you would when I brought out the obvious.

[sheshe2]

97. Guess ya'll forgot that a few minutes ago you brushed off a whole

lot of DUers in a "Certain Group".

You do remember that do you not?! You don't like the BOG, trash the group then. Your choice.

Good night.

[Rex]

99. The Certain Group wasn't the BOG.

Of course you just assumed I meant the BOG in my reply, but since you had to reply to me - I could only bring up the current hypocrisy of the OP and the BOG. I guess though if you want I will put you in that group now. I really don't care.

Good night.

[sheshe2]

77. Ahhh yes, a "certain group".

Divisive S**T Rex!

[Rex]

78. Believe it or not, but I am sure you would rather not.

The BOG is a perfect example of why this OP is a joke.

[sheshe2]

83. Actually the BOG is a perfect example of why

this OP is spot on. So yeah I'm going there. Did you think when you said...

"Believe it or not, but I am sure you would rather not." and... You called out a "Certain Group"

I was going to quiver and run and hide. I am not embarrassed that I support this President. I never will be. Sorry that ya'll thought that he could walk on water and part the sea for ya. I never thought that he could when I voted for him, yet it seems many did and now they are disappointed. Sad that~

Many in GD tell everyone at DU that it is their way or the highway. You all are right, yet we are bashed for supporting anything this President says or does.

There is such hatred spewed in GD towards this President. From some, never ever a positive word.

So back to the point of the OP...

Once again, the hallmark of being a progressive is in our ability to accept the inherent diversity of thought on our side of the aisle. It’s simply a fact that a liberal in rural Kentucky isn’t necessarily going to have the same perspective as a a liberal in Brooklyn. A liberal black farmer in Mississippi isn’t going to see things the same as a liberal black man who grew up in Southeast DC. To expect that is the height of absurdity. We’re not all the same, and to expect us to think the same way about everything is immaturity at its zenith.

The BOG is about diversity, we are not the ones walking in lock step. Ya'll do fine on your own.

Nice talking to you Rex~

[Rex]

86. The BOG ban list proves it is just an echo chamber. Which makes the OP seem like BS.

But please do go on. Or not.

[Vashta Nerada]

88. I just saw the BOG.

106 blocked members?



I'm going to agree with you on every point you've made in this thread.

[Rex]

92. Look at the names.

Some of those posters are WAY more liberal than I ever will be! Far more tolerant and restrained. I've been here too long not to notice when some bullshit is going on right in front of me.

[Vashta Nerada]

95. I was surprised to see many names on that list

who I wouldn't have expected to be on that list.

SMH.

[Rex]

96. Exactly, I fight with some of those people

on here a lot!

Also, notice who is posting the most in that group. Oh...and guess what? Now I've been ignored for my intolerance. Which makes sense. I can be intolerable and blunt when it comes to the truth.

[Vashta Nerada]

98. You were ignored for intolerance when the OP was about tolerating diversity?

Seems...oxymoronic.

[Rex]

100. Well I pointed it out, thanks for at least getting my meaning.

The OP clearly thinks I was talking about her. That was all that came to mind at that point and you can see the results.

I've never seen a ban list like that one.

[sheshe2]

105. Vashta...

The BOG is a group not a forum. You do know about the groups and their mission statements correct? Like the group History of Feminism, LGBT group, the African American group and one of the newest the Elizabeth Warren group.

They each have their own mission statements. You need to abide by that groups rules. They are safe havens. You go against the rules you can get banned. Why would anyone go into a group to trash them? There is all of GD to do that in.

If you have a problem with the groups rules, then talk to Skinner.

[Vashta Nerada]

110. Did 106 people trash the group while in the group?

Or did they offer an opinion different from the mission statement?

[sheshe2]

112. Don't know all the stats...

Yet recently a whole hell of a lot were cleaned out of that file. Why you ask? Cause they were banned by the admins as trolls!

Also. They are warned that they are posting in a safe haven and continue. Question for you Vashta, do you track mud in your neighbors house? Of course you don't.

Would you go to HOF ,LGBT or AA group and trash them? Would you walk into their home and trash them?

I do not understand your problem with these groups. There are rules and you follow them or not. As I said, take it up with Skinner. Go to ATA and ask those questions. These groups were set up with his permission!

[Vashta Nerada]

142. I find it difficult to believe that 106 DUers trashed the group w/in the group.

Most other groups don't have nearly that many blocked members.

[sheshe2]

152. And most other groups do not have

so many haters as this President does. Just try reading GD on a daily basis.

[Vashta Nerada]

161. Uh huh.

Nobody here hates the President. They just hate some of the policies he's implemented or some of the policies he's continuing from the Bush era.

[sheshe2]

169. ...

[progressoid]

158. It's 107 now.

They just added another.

For me, it was an simple post of disappointment of policy. Then, bam, blocked. Actually, I didn't even know I was posting in the BOG - I clicked on a thread from the Greatest Page.

The sad part is I've actually wanted to post supportive things also, but, alas....banned.

[Vashta Nerada]

162. Ironic, isn't it?

Especially with the spirit of this OP.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

137. 106 diverse voices not being heard!

Pity.

[progressoid]

156. ***ding ding ding ***

[Marr]

168. No kidding. +1

[DonViejo]

40. Thanks for posting this she...

Hope this becomes a thread of thoughtful, polite and thought provoking discussion.

[sheshe2]

50. Oh Don...

That would indeed be nice, yet this is a new DU. Who knows.

I for one have my cup half full. We are moving forward. Slowly, so painfully slow, yet is is indeed forward. Together, collectively we can do this. As a party, united we can. No one individual is right, nor is one belief. We are the party of the people and everyones voices should be heard.

Thank you Don.

[SMC22307]

140. Wrong. Opposition to Iraq -- one belief that was HUGELY right.

Choice -- one belief that is right.
Protecting the social safety net -- one belief that is right.
Marriage equality -- one belief that is right.
Legalization -- one belief that is right.
Strong public schools -- one belief that is right.
Fighting against voter suppression -- one belief that is right.
Fighting against income inequality -- one belief that is right.
And on and on and on...

These are pretty basic "liberal" beliefs, not principles that should be diluted to appease centrists. Liberals take a stand, and have been proven right on the issues time and time again. The problem is that it takes much longer for centrists to come around, and often it's only because of a (supposedly) dynamic leader. Centrists don't take risks, and only come around when it's safe, riding the wave of popular opinion. Only now does the country seem to be interested in the minimum wage, after Occupiers were pepper-sprayed and pummeled. Only now does the country seem interested in legalization, after forward-thinking voters in Colorado and Washington lead the way. Only now does much of the country seem open to marriage equality, thanks to progressive states leading the way.

And if we learned anything from The Daily Show (or was it Colbert?) segment on the openly gay mayor of a small Kentucky town, it's that rural Kentuckians might not think so differently than those Brooklyn hipsters after all. And that's just one example off of the top of my head.

Progress wouldn't be as painfully slow if the centrists took risks, and actually BELIEVED in something. Besides Obama, that is.

[Bobbie Jo]

164. What makes you think the

liberals in question don't ascribe to these beliefs?

Choice -- one belief that is right.

Agreed.

Protecting the social safety net -- one belief that is right.

Agreed.

Marriage equality -- one belief that is right.

Agreed.

Legalization -- one belief that is right.

Agreed.

Strong public schools -- one belief that is right.

Agreed.

Fighting against voter suppression -- one belief that is right.

Agreed.

Fighting against income inequality -- one belief that is right.

Agreed.

And on and on and on... YES!

Those are just a few of my core beliefs as well. The effort to portray some of us as "conservative" or "confused right-wingers" has become incredibly tiresome, and dishonest in the extreme.

I am not your enemy.

[SMC22307]

165. Nor am I yours.

And if those are your core beliefs, you don't sound conservative or confused at all. But "dishonest in the extreme" are these idiotic, divisive, manipulative blogs repeatedly trotted out at DU. The ones that suggest, for instance, that progressives are to blame for the past 40 years:

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/a-progressive-manifesto/

Centrists *are* too conservative, IMO, and they're holding the country back. One example: Blue Dog Mark Pryor (D) opposes the proposed $10.10 minimum wage increase. Some on this board would say, now, now, get out the vote and progress will follow. I guess they think that sounds all well and good, but the millions of Americans living in poverty don't have time for "pragmatism," they are suffering NOW.

And face it, many Republicans have been driven to register (or re-register) I or D simply because the GOP is so extreme. Welcome to the party, folks, but only if you adopt the party's ideals. And if that sounds purist, so be it.

[Armstead]

42. This is my favorite part....

"I was happy as a clam to get 80 percent of what we wanted/needed, and I was willing to work for as much of the other 20 percent as we could get. But many of these “progressives” were willing to give up the 80 percent, because they weren’t getting the other 20 percent. Some actually conducted a campaign to “kill the bill”! Just because not everyone was as sold on certain things as they were."

80 percent? Ha. More like 10 percvent of what many people wanted -- and worse than nothing in some respects.

A lot of people have been pushing for single payer universal coverage for years. When it was finally brought up, that was immediately taken off the table by the Democratic poobahs.

Then the "rabid progressives" reluctantly agreed to support the "compromise" of a public option, as at least a step in the direction towards social insurance as an alternative......

But Noooooooo.....The rug got pulled out from that too. Too radical for the GOP who will hate all forms of health care anyway. And gosh, we can't offend Joe Lieberman.

Instead we got private health insurance further embedded into the system -- when that was the root cause of the problem in the first place. And, to make matters worse, we were legally forced to buy insurance from the crooks.

And the writer of that little screed doesn't understand why health care advocates were a little upset?

[TheMathieu]

43. Thanks for this.

Some of us come around on a multitude of issues at our own pace or, GASP, have our own independent thoughts on an issue, situation, person, etc.

I, for one, became a Democrat because I'm poor and want me and my family to have a bigger piece of the pie.

I also want a clean environment for me and my descendants.

And my indifference toward what people put in their bodies, the health decisions, etc. lead me to support LGBT issues, women's reproductive rights and major changes to drug policies.

A lot of the reasons I became a Democrat are apathy and selfishness, so when someone wants to sell their position on an issue to me, I want them to tell me what it means for me or how supporting or opposing that issue will effect leaders that are enacting other policies that benefit me.

And that's a level of honesty I guarantee you won't get from many people, but I'm different.

[sheshe2]

108. Well said, Mathieu! n/t

[SMC22307]

146. "A lot of the reasons I became a Democrat are apathy and selfishness..."

It's honest, but not particularly admirable. I'm in it for the greater good, as I believe most of us are.

[madokie]

46. That's us

Fixers. In fact we thrive on diversity.
thanks

[frwrfpos]

58. are you saying we should embrace republicans and their policies?

That if only us liberals would come around and start to absorb right wing garbage that makes us Democrats?


Are you serious?

Is this a cruel mocking joke of some kind?

[baldguy]

68. It's especially infuriating when people to claim the "Progressive Left" mantle

While they embrace Rand Paul and the nutcase RWers. Then they accuse of being fascists anyone who points out that such "friends" are no friends of progressives.

[frwrfpos]

72. I dont embrace Rand Paul. I think hes a fucking hypocrite and a cruel human being

Ive yet to see your definition of the "progressive left" embrace nutcase RWers. Ever.

I find it funny that you and others complain about the progressive left. from where are you complaining from? the right?

If you dont iddentify as a progressive, what exactly do you identify as?



What policies are important to you?

[merrily]

63. If the right needs four official replies to the SOTU, they must have diversity of thought, too.

And I am quite sure those four replies did not represent every point of view in the Republican Party, either.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

66. keeping this kicked

[sheshe2]

84. Thanks Pretzel!

[stevil]

74. Kick

Great post

[treestar]

75. a good column from a very good blog

There simply are not enough people out there who identify as “liberal” or “progressive” to give us a majority on any issue. We need to align ourselves with reasonable people who disagree with us on some issues.

Exactly, I am weary of arguing with unreasonable people. Reality is what it is.

[sheshe2]

93. treestar!

Exactly and thank you.

Diversity is our strength; use it.

[NuclearDem]

85. Awesome, let's water down the terms liberal and progressive even more.

There has to be a point where we call bullshit. The Party is moving to the right, and the more they abuse the "tolerance of other ideas" card, the more useless a term like progressive becomes.

If you're a centrist, you're not a progressive. You may hold some progressive ideas, but you cannot be a centrist and progressive at the same time.

[Vashta Nerada]

90. I wish that link you provided would cut the crap.

[sheshe2]

118. You mean this Crap, Vashta!?

Once again, the hallmark of being a progressive is in our ability to accept the inherent diversity of thought on our side of the aisle. It’s simply a fact that a liberal in rural Kentucky isn’t necessarily going to have the same perspective as a a liberal in Brooklyn. A liberal black farmer in Mississippi isn’t going to see things the same as a liberal black man who grew up in Southeast DC. To expect that is the height of absurdity. We’re not all the same, and to expect us to think the same way about everything is immaturity at its zenith.

There’s another aspect of this to consider, as well. There simply are not enough people out there who identify as “liberal” or “progressive” to give us a majority on any issue. We need to align ourselves with reasonable people who disagree with us on some issues. It’s why we align ourselves with the Democratic Party; because we can’t do it on our own. Instead of using the word “centrist” as a pejorative and calling people who disagree with you “low information voters” or even “stupid,” sit and listen to these people instead, and find out what they think and why they think the way they do. Most of them actually make sense. And since they live the issues we supposedly care about, they might very well know more than we do about them. They may also have some great innovative ideas for fixing a problem.

[Cha]

119. Thanks sheshe!

[Vashta Nerada]

143. So...if a liberal is anti-abortion, does that mean their values should be regarded?

Absolutely not.

One cannot be a liberal and be against abortion.

[ananda]

147. Can't a liberal be against abortion and still be pro choice?

That's why it's called CHOICE.

[Vashta Nerada]

150. A liberal also shouldn't be an anti-vaxxer or pro-corporation.

But hey, inclusion of ideas, right?

[Luminous Animal]

91. I love when 6th graders blog. It is so cute to see them struggle with reason. Thanks for the post!

[frwrfpos]

101. your post is exhibit A on how infiltrated the Democratic party is

telling everyone we should just embrace republican bullshit and shut up about it.

gag.

[sheshe2]

109. Sorry that's how you read it.

Your loss!

[frwrfpos]

111. no, its this country's loss

kowtowing to right wing bigots, racists, and economically violent republican criminals.

And you suggest the Democratic party should "absorb" this


How cruel and vile to suggest this.

[sheshe2]

113. Please offer a quote where I said that.

Thanks.

It's late gotta go~

[Cha]

120. the poster is confused about what the OP

says, she. Must not have understood a thing.. says NOTHING about RW bullshit.. that's for sure.

[Bobbie Jo]

132. What a twisted little strawman.

Speaking of infiltration....

Welcome to DU.

[quinnox]

121. A kinder, gentler, "The peoples view"?

Same old crap, "be a lock stepper!" - but trying to pile on the sugary sweetness instead of outright hate and disdain for progressives/liberals. Cut the crap.

[SMC22307]

149. There appears to be a never-ending supply of these shit blogs.

I'm wondering how much of it is Obama-driven, and whether or not we'll be bombarded with them during the next (possibly Democratic) administration.

[JoeyT]

122. So how many right wing positions can someone take before they're disqualified?

There must be a number, otherwise Rush Limbaugh is a liberal. Bill O'Reilly is a liberal. Shawn Hannity is a liberal. Bush and Cheney are liberals. If they are not liberals, then there has to be a crossover point where a person stops being a liberal. If there isn't, then the word is utterly meaningless.

Are some positions off limits, while others are up for debate? If the Grand Dragon (Wizard? Ninja? I don't remember what name those dumbasses use for their leader) comes out tomorrow in favor of taxing the rich, creating a strong social safety net, equal rights for women, and so on and so forth, but he wants to keep hating non-white people and LGBT people, does HE get to be a liberal? If not, why is one position an automatic disqualification while others aren't? Who decided which positions were automatic disqualifications, and when? (If he does, he can have the word because I don't to be one anymore.)

How many and which abhorrent positions can a person hold before we're allowed to tell them they're not a liberal anymore?

Feel free to substitute "progressive" for "liberal". It's another one that's lost all meaning lately.

[JoePhilly]

126. Who gets to decide who we "disqualify"? You?

I know ... perhaps there are some high Priests of liberalism here on DU to whom we can turn.

We could ask them to make a list of those to be shunned for their abhorrent views.

[raouldukelives]

148. It's not that Rush, Cheney and Hannity are liberals.

They only feel it is not progressive to give them equal consideration when deciding on how to address issues.
Personally I beg to differ but it is a free country and they are certainly free to treat with admiration and respect information from any source they please.

[MannyGoldstein]

128. Is legalizing slavery a Progressive view?

If not, then what's the cutoff between Progressive and non-Progressive views? Who gets to decide?

[alarimer]

133. Not all ideas are qually valid

Creationism, anti-vaccination, the 9/11 Conspiracy theories. Those are all examples of ideas that are completely and utterly false.

You can also say that trickel-down economics is invalid because it's been shown not to work. Higher taxes on the rich and corporations DO help the economy and level the playing field.

There are many so-called progressives or liberals that believe things that are utter nonsense and should not be considered for inclusion.

I would also say that pro-life positions are decidely NOT liberal or progressive either. Neither is support for environmental destruction such as fracking or the Keystone pipeline.

You can have too big a tent. There are certain defining values that mark a true progressive.

[PowerToThePeople]

134. I do not think 9/11 should be in that list

Unless you buy the bush/cheney story 100%. This single event has shaped everything since, and if we have it wrong, every choice made since has been wrong.

[Fumesucker]

135. The OP could have just said if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear

There is something to be said for succinctness.

[Bluenorthwest]

136. It's like the People's View without the charm.

'All points of view are equal'? Address then racism, slavery, discrimination against LGBT people and climate change as they relate to the crazed theories of this OP. If it is wrong to hold anything as a strong principle, then do you accept all bigotry and discrimination as valid points of view? If you do not accept such things, then clearly not all ideas are acceptable as part of being a 'big tent'. That means there are in fact metrics and standards which do in fact apply.
There are reasons the Democratic Party is not the Republican Party. Those who want to proactively accept bigotry, ignorance and discrimination should simply go join the Republicans, or rejoin as the case may be.
Folks who are anti gay, anti choice and wish to impose their own neurosis onto others simply are not liberal in any way shape or form.
To think it wise to 'tolerate' all points of view means you would tolerate openly racist people, open homophobes, active opponents of equality for women. If you do not 'tolerate' all of those things, then you do in fact have metrics and standards and limits for what you see as acceptable in this Party. To affect that your metrics and limits are the only righteous metrics and limits is to be the very think the OP claims to oppose. Which figures.

[Romulox]

141. Why is it ALWAYS a "centrist" who gets to lead the conversation? nt

[upaloopa]

155. So why do we have the DU bullies enforcing their

views of life on everyone else here. Their OP's about what progressives believe or the insistence that the paradigm they see the world through is the only valid one and any disagreement means you are the very evil they are posting about?
They have their own forums but like to venture into GD to start food fights and pissing contests.

[SMC22307]

157. If anyone wants a good laugh, read "A Progressive Manifesto."

Seriously.

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/a-progressive-manifesto/

Who knew? Progressives are to blame for the past 40 - 40! - years.

[TheKentuckian]

159. A party who has a mission of representing everyone will either represent the interests of no one

or will largely represent the interests of the opposing political party with narrower focus, they will always be able to peel numbers from the all inclusive group to get over the top.

The opposite gravity of a radically regressive, racists, bigots, sexists, and economic feudalists cannot be a mean that over calculates such folks especially when combined with much of the concentrated wealth and power fuels the worst and those closest to them on "our side".

The real agenda is to de - fang language and obliterate frame of reference to allow any action taken to be called progressive or liberal or Centrist or even conservative bases on appealing to or attempting to keep folks in line. Essentially, if a Democrat is for it then by definition it is progressive. Eventually, this is expanded to Republicans as well as long as they aren't officially Teabaggers while at the same time leftists are relegated to Teabagger status and so the political spectrum shrinks but continues to move to the right.

The concept also continues the push to focus less and less on issues and policy in favor of personality branding and team focus akin to sports loyalty, after all such conversations are very divisive, setting progressive versus progressive over differences when there is an opposition to beat though winning simply means we have the honor of instituting their agenda because despite representing everyone already we must also met them "in the middle".

You cannot represent everyone and represent anyone in any good faith, in fact the more folks one attempts to represent the poorer job will be done in the mission and the more influence power leaks in and dominates all the will of the people and the harder the status quo is to move.

This kind of politics is for the amoral and rudderless or for those who's aims are best hidden if they are to come to fruition.

The shit sounds high minded in some ways but it is shit because it is nonsense under the pressure of and plight of folks the real world, the state of the media, the toxic influence of money, and the current state of corporate capture of government.
We aren't at ground zero with broad equality here, the power and influence of a few overwhelms the will of the people. Wealth is concentrated to Dickinsonsonian levels, the environment is at least pushed to extremes, the safety nets under steadfast assault, wages stagnate, jobs scarce, opportunity diminishes for most.

[cali]

160. so this guy is saying there's no real catalog of beliefs that define progressivism? nonsense

[SMC22307]

163. Centrist Mark Pryor (D) opposes the proposed $10.10 minimum wage increase.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4453668

If he doesn't come around on this, I hope he loses. Fuck him and his "painfully slow progress."

[BlueStreak]

166. Why does this forum even host enclaves where people can post their myopic views

but then block anybody who might challenge those ideas?

That is ridiculous. People who post here should be prepared to receive respectful criticism and should expect to see other views supported. It is a disservice to the DU community at large to permit some people to have threads in protected forums, with those threads appearing in the main lists along with all the legitimate threads that are open to the democratic process. When they are able to block all dissenting views, that can give the mistaken impression that, in absence of dissent, the majority must agree with them.

If there are to be protected enclaves, then they should be completely walled off from the DU forum at large.

[Marr]

167. I've noticed that the "progressives" who disagree with the others on things like the NSA...

also seem to "just disagree" on things like free trade, foreign policy, how to deal with Wall Street abuses, and a host of other issues.

People can disagree, yes. But if you 'just disagree' with most liberals on just about every meaningful issue, you're not much of a political ally.

[Maven]

170. This is the sort of bogus argument conservatives use to create a false equivalency

between good and bad ideas. And then they accuse those who reject their bad ideas of being small-minded and "discriminatory".

Oh wait.

I forgot who I was talking to. Carry on.