On Purity and the Democratic Primary Race

[MineralMan]

In my opinion, purity does not exist in politics. It cannot, because there is no pure society. Some candidates, like Bernie Sanders, for example, are called purists, for their dogged adherence to specific lines of thinking. Others, like Joe Biden, are more willing to bend their ideas to match the population's points of view as a whole. That got me thinking about political purity.

Back in the 1960s, I read tons of arguments that took a Marxist/Leninist view of politics, including writings by Marx and Lenin themselves. It was pretty convincing stuff, actually. What they laid out in their political philosophy sounded ideal to me, as a 20-something person. That was until I started looking at governments that said they were Marxist/Leninist based. Utopias they were not. Not at all. So, I started thinking about purity in politics and came to a realization.

Purity is impossible in actual application. If everyone agreed 100% with a philosophy and were willing to live their lives following that philosophy's precepts, most political philosophies would work pretty well, I decided. But, and this tossed it all in the garbage can, everyone does not agree with anything, really. Even the leaders of nations don't follow the precepts of the philosophies they espouse. The population they govern doesn't necessarily agree with any of it. So, the conflicts are automatic and built into political reality.

No place I know of is more diverse in its political philosophy than the United States. No two people I have ever met agree 100% with each other. What appeals to one is anathema to another, and so it goes for 350 million people or so. Even regional differences in political philosophy exist in the United States.

What is our political philosophy here? It is, ostensibly, a philosophy that values majority decision-making by the population, bound by a set of rules designed to provide a basic set of rights everyone should enjoy. Does it work? Well, not very well, but better than in nations that are ruled by despots or dictators. At least we ask the population to weigh in from time to time.

We have no purity in the United States because purity is impossible. Just as there are no real benevolent dictators, there are no ideal decisions made through the democratic process. Every society and government is full of faults, because people are full of faults. We disagree with each other. Always. Here in the USA, there is an almost 50/50 split between conservative and liberal viewpoints. It's a miracle we have a working government at all.

Purity? Bunkum. It doesn't exist in any working method of government. It never will, as long as people are involved.

So, we muddle along as best we can. If we actually followed the boundaries that guarantee individual rights, we'd probably do OK, mostly. But, we have great trouble doing even that.

If you insist on purity of philosophy, you will always be disappointed. If you allow for a pretty broad spectrum of ideas, we might just be able to get along. Purity is impossible. There are just too many of us for it ever to exist in government.

We just have to do our best to make sure nobody is left out of the equation. That's what every election is about. We keep trying to make things work. If we don't insist that government work exactly as we think it should as individuals, we might manage to continue to muddle through it all.

Am I posting unpopular ideas? I hope so...

[TwilightZone]

1. That's why compromise is a vital part of politics.

Without it, nothing would ever get done. Those who insist that compromise doesn't belong in politics don't understand politics. Or people, for that matter.

That doesn't mean that we should agree with or accept nutjob right-wing positions. It just means that no one is likely to ever get 100% of what they want (even within the same party or ideological group), and 90% or 80% or even 60% is better than nothing, especially if it's the foundation of further progress. In a scope of 535 legislators and more than 300 million people, barring extraordinary circumstances, all progress is going to require compromise.

[Thekaspervote]

2. Totally agree. A lot of people would like to see the gop go away forever, myself included

News flash: ain’t gonna happen. We have to have politicians that are willing to wade knee deep into gop crap if needed to find those 1-3 votes needed to pass legislation. Otherwise nothing gets done

If you think purity is going to get anything done... better go back and ready some political history. LBJ’s presidency would be a good place to start

[msongs]

3. purity in views is different from being temperamentally fit for the job nt

[Demsrule86]

4. My Dad who was the smartest man I ever knew except for hubs who is brilliant...said that

Socialism, Communism will not work because it is based upon the idea of perfection- a perfect society where all are valued equally...and human beings are and will remain imperfect. To each according to his/her need will always fail because some will always desire more than they need and seek power to achieve it.

[PatSeg]

5. If more people had a better understanding of history,

they would know that "My way or the highway" only works in a totalitarian state, not in a democracy. All the incredible progressive changes we've witnessed in the past came about with compromise, give and take. It can be painful sometimes to give an inch or two, but its better to have some positive change than none at all.

In my mind, I am a purist in many regards, but in the real world, I know it is not a rational mindset. I would rather have some than none.

Excellent opinion piece.

[MineralMan]

8. It doesn't actually work in a totalitarian state, either,

except to the benefit of the totalitarians. Everyone else loses. At least here, there's a chance for everyone to benefit, at least in theory. Sometimes it works better than other times.

[PatSeg]

15. Actually

I meant to the benefit of those in power. They can be inflexible and get whatever they want a good deal of the time.

I suppose we have the advantage of having lived through numerous administrations and having witnessed history in real time. A much younger version of me might not have always been so willing to compromise for the greater good.

[MineralMan]

17. Yes. I'm an old geezer, and have a good grasp of human history as well.

I still have no answers except for a realization that some sort of compromise is always needed. I didn't want to pay $21,000 for the new car I just bought. I think $10,000 would have been a better price. However, since I can't build a car myself, I'm sort of at the mercy of the car manufacturers and the local dealership.

I ended up paying $18,000, which I still thought was too much, but I do have a new car, so there is that.

[PatSeg]

21. Excellent example!

I've known far too many people who would prefer nothing at all, if they couldn't get exactly what they want.

I've noticed that a handful of people are quick to accuse people of being centrists or moderates, if those people show a willingness to compromise. In their minds, leftist liberals is a very small club and those who would compromise need not apply.

Glad you got a new car and didn't pay $21,000 for it!

[MineralMan]

24. Well, it was a, you know, "compromise."

[PatSeg]

25. You are such a sell-out!

"If I can't get the price I want, I'll walk!"

[MineralMan]

27. Well, I could do that, I guess, but I also knew the invoice

price the dealer paid for the car. So, we split the difference. Or so I believe, which is the main thing, I suppose...

[melman]

6. Nobody talks about purity except the people that rail against it

It's a 100% fake and phony issue invented to batter the left.

[MineralMan]

7. Did you read the entire post?

I think you didn't.

[MarcA]

12. Agreed. n/t

[PatSeg]

18. A lot of people would disagree with you

I can accept the purity of a person's viewpoint, but also know that it may not always be realistic. Personally, I don't generally rail against purity, but I do rail against stubborn inflexibility when it hinders our progress. Also a handful of those stubborn people do not have a monopoly on liberal issues. Most of the people here at DU would identify themselves as "left", but a handful of people would erroneously call them "centrists".

[BannonsLiver]

20. Yes. And one who would disagree is President Obama

What the poster you are replying to is attempting to do is gaslight us. And it won’t work. Anyone who has seen the bros on Twitter knows the purity tests are very real.

[PatSeg]

22. Yes

Anyone who is paying attention at all would know it is very real. It often has a cult-like feel to it.

[MineralMan]

26. Labels tend to become personalized by each person who uses them.

Lacking a commonly understood definition, they're often all but useless.

Yesterday, I got called a right-winger. I laughed, because my definition of a "right-winger" is drastically different from that of the person who used that label for me.

Every label is on a sliding scale, with each person positioning the slider however they wish. It's a problem with language and our understanding of it. It's an insurmountable problem, really.

In reality, everyone on this board who is not here on a pretense is pretty close to everyone else on that sliding scale. So, we expand the scale so we can differentiate among ourselves, but we don't change the labels. It's laughable.

[PatSeg]

29. A right-winger?

Okay, that is an excellent example of how ridiculous these tags can get. Some people apparently think they own the definitions of some of these words, though at times it feels like being divisive just for the sake of being divisive. There are people who prefer conflict over meaningful dialogue.

I've been in arguments where if I move to the other's position a bit, they change their position, because the fight was what they wanted first and foremost.

[MineralMan]

35. You're right. There are some who enjoy the conflict most of all.

I try very hard to avoid such people. Discussing anything with them is a waste of time.

For them, I end the conversation with a reply that is only a title that consists of just this:

..

In my signature line, I explain that each dot signifies a word. I leave it to them to figure out which words.

[PatSeg]

38. Excellent idea

Then they argue with themselves!

[TreasonousBastard]

9. At some point I have to revisit Plato, and Aristotle's complaints about...

"The Republic". Political thought of the Enlightenment is another place to be revisited. There hasn't been anything new for a while.

Truth is, Marx and Lenin seem to be the only ones who invented a new system without rehashing some of the older ones. They just did a lousy job of it.

Microeconomics and the "guns and butter" exercises asks the right questions, and can be expanded to human rights, criminal justice, or anything else you desire. It questions allocation of resources, but just as easily could question allocation of criminal penalties.

Compromise is everything, of course, but there must somehow be rules for compromising, which will themselves involve compromise.

"My way or the highway" has no place in human discourse.

[MineralMan]

11. Thanks for your input. I agree with you.

As long as individuals can think, they will think differently from each other. That seriously complicates every aspect of human relationships and society.

Sadly, someone or some system is required to mediate and govern any sizable group of people. Since there are no truly benevolent kings or dictators, governments that depend, to some degree, on the will of the governed are needed if there is to be any sort of just treatment.

I don't think anything like an ideal government is possible. There are just too many variables for any system of rules to work smoothly in all situations. We are simply far too many imperfect beings interacting with each other in too complex a society.

[The Mouth]

10. Everyone loves "Democracy"

Except when, you know., those *other* 30 or 40 percent get a vote.

And everyone loves authoritarianism- as long as the authoritarians are enforcing what they think right.

I see misguided, hypocritical people, even on this board, attacking their fellow citizens for who they voted for; sorry, if you believe in "democracy", everyone's vote is equal, everyone's opinion is equally valid, if not, then 'fess up, you're an authoritarian and don't really believe in Democracy.

Our system is meant, is carefully designed, to give a minority an outsized voice; witness the filibuster and our representative system in general. What disgusts me is people who only believe in democracy when it suits THEM, and disparage the people who vote in other ways.

The people who attack their fellow citizens for who and what they support are the root of the problem, *ANY* citizen's voice, vote, and values are as worthy as mine; if we want to change the Senate, or the President, the way to do it is by getting more people to vote for us, but there is *NEVER* a reason to be impolite, rude, or disrespectful to anyone else for what they believe, who they support or for working for what they think best for the country, period, no matter how reprehensible I find their beliefs or vote or values.

Democracy is messy, if having a MAGAT's vote, voice, and values carry the same weight as yours (a rhetorical "yours", not directed to you MM) is offensive, then people should just admit they want to install a dictatorship.

The concept of "Purity", of no-compromise ideologically driven policy, is anathema to any Democracy.

[MineralMan]

13. We seem to be moving toward that dictatorship at the moment.

There are always some people who think that's the best way to run things, as long as the dictator agrees with them. Dictatorships, though, always seem to end up having to rule through arms and violence. Right now, I'm not too fond of the folks who have armed themeselves. They mostly seem to be on Trump's side. That's worrisome, to say the least.

[The Mouth]

31. I bet some people would be happy with a dictatorship

if it meant getting rid of Trump, enforcing a complete and urgent Green anti climate change agenda, decreeing universal healthcare, and getting rid of all guns. Maybe they'd be right, better a dictatorship that keeps the earth from becoming uninhabitable
semi sarc.

[MineralMan]

36. And such people are unaware of the misery what they have in mind

would create for huge numbers of people. Few people are able to extrapolate their ideas to encompass an entire society, and nobody is able to do so very accurately.

As in physics, "Every action causes an equal but opposite reaction." Newton said that.

"People think in limited ways." I said that.

[MarcA]

14. Refusing to compromise on Principles is not purity, it's Principles. n/t

[MineralMan]

16. Insisting on one's "principles" when others disagree is something

else again, isn't it? Do you think there is just one set of "principles" out there that is valid? There isn't. If there were, all government would be much simpler.

Many people have attempted to come up with a list of universal "principles." Which set do you think is correct and right for everyone?

I like the Democratic Party Platform pretty well. Others do not. However, I am not egotistical enough to think that I could create a list of universal principles that should be followed by everyone. Many have tried, and we still have relative chaos in human society.

[MarcA]

19. So are all stated Principles of equal value?

What of the "purity" of compromise? And are you stating that I am "egotistical"?

[MineralMan]

23. Of course they are not, from any perspective.

As I said, there are many lists of "principles." What those principles are depends on who compiled the list.

And no, I did not state that you are egotistical.

You have a set of principles you probably try to follow, I'm sure. So do I. Mine is based on the principle of reciprocity. I try to behave toward others as I hope they will behave toward me. All other principles I follow are derived from that one.

The devil, however, is in the details. No set of principles can include every possible situation. Someone is always excluded. Someone is always left unconsidered.

For example, let's look at homeless people. No matter what you come up with to help them get shelter and other necessities, you will still find people living outside with no resources. That's because we don't understand what causes every individual to be in that situation. Some will even refuse assistance, for a variety of reasons. Some are incapable of sharing space with anyone else. If your principles require you to help the homeless, you still won't be able to end that problem permanently or for everyone.

There are no universal principles, really. The closest one is the one I use, but even it is flawed, because it is base on how I hope people will behave toward me. My expectations could be skewed in one way or another, setting up a conflict. I don't think they are, but I wouldn't, would I?

Our Declaration of Independence tried to state a simple principle, as well. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are unalienable rights, it says. However, there are many definitions of all three words. What they mean to me are very likely to be different from what they mean to someone else. One person may think that carrying a gun around at all time is their right, based on liberty, their happiness in having a gun, and to protect their life. Now, that principle has been distorted from how I understand it. Who is correct? Who has the right definition?

Principles begin with the language used to state them, but language is imprecise.

[Kurt V.]

28. Let's apply some of this to Marx. he was more right than wrong.

[MineralMan]

32. Marx was a great thinker. No question about it.

However, he was a philosopher, not a ruler. In the end, his ideal was not practically possible. He recognized the essential problem, but was unable to actually find a practical solution to it.

The sayings ascribed to Jesus are also a solid set of principles for human relations and society. If only humans were capable of following them. But they are not, so very little good came from it all, really. Instead, clever, greedy people built religions based on the statements they liked from those purported sayings and ignored the rest.

Pure democracies can also work, for very small groups of people. Sadly, that's not the situation almost anywhere, so a pure democracy is unworkable in most societies. Beyond a certain population, clever people will rule and greed will dominate.

A truly benevolent monarch might rule over a peaceable, just kingdom, but there are no such benevolent monarchs. Self-interest and greed interferes.

It's not difficult to see what the problems are in any arrangement of society. It's impossible, though, to codify an arrangement for society that will actually function smoothly. People do not behave as you expect. That's the undeniable rule that makes all human societies fail in one way or another.

Capitalism is flawed because of human greed. Socialism fails for the same reason, as do democratic societies. All systems fail because of greed. As long as there are clever people who are greedy, those people will rise to power, because they are clever, and corrupt whatever structure is in place. There will always be clever, greedy people.

The problem of greed is exacerbated by technology, since the clever and powerful will use that technology to dominate further.

[Kurt V.]

39. Aristotle believed a benevolent monarch was superior to democracy. but only for that single

reign. for some good 21st century reading on marx you can checkout emptywheel.net if ya wanna.

[delisen]

30. Ah you are at your best when philosophizing

Hannah Arendt would be proud.

[MineralMan]

33. You are far, far too kind.

I'm not anywhere near her league.

A key thing, though, that I take from her writing is the concept of the persistence of freedom. Regardless of the state of a society, it is possible for the individual to establish personal freedom within the limits imposed by society. Even the prisoner in solitary confinement can be free in his or her own mind and explore that freedom as far as she or he is capable. That freedom cannot be taken away, except by death.

[beachbumbob]

34. purity exist in GOP world and why we democrats must afford that crap at all costs

[redstatebluegirl]

37. I totally agree!