Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
58. There will always be people who would rather burn the village down in the name of "saving" it.
Wed Sep 3, 2014, 10:40 PM
Sep 2014

And having a rallying cry of "NO COMPROMISE!" is not exactly a small-d democratic virtue. Just the opposite, in fact - which has been amply proven given the recent history of the GOP.

The fact is the left has not been very successful in gaining support for it's message. That's not due to it's ideas or positions. Time & time again, polls have shown that the general public supports more liberal policies that those our elected representatives take - as long as those positions aren't label as such. There are many reasons for this: One is that "left", "liberal" & "progressive" have been given bad connotations by the RW corporate press. (duh!) Two is that there is no one "left-wing" agenda. There are only a myriad of voices, each with their own views, their own positions, their own causes & their own goals. Three is that some of these voices are more interested in ideology than outcomes. They believe that if one big-D Democratic politician doesn't explicitly campaign for special protections for the free-range albino jack rabbits of Rhode Island, then the party leadership should be torn down, in spite of the fact that the one politician & the leadership of the party might otherwise support the majority of their agenda, just because they aren't "ideologically pure" on this one issue.

To be able to get anything accomplished on a national level, you need the support of a national party. The Democratic Party has always been a coalition. And it has always had the same basic rules: If you want things to change & your voice to be heard, then you need bring in the votes. No matter how honorable, just & righteous your cause is, if you can't bring in the votes, then you'll fail. If you work to destroy the only party that agrees with you on most of your issues, instead of joining it, then you'll get nowhere. You'll lose & your enemies will win.

And when you lose, it won't be the Party's fault.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

the broad mass-based race would then have a leader. Haven't we been there done that already? lonestarnot Sep 2014 #1
you're assuming she or he would HAVE to be leading it. Ken Burch Sep 2014 #2
A natural leader will have the tendency to lead. Anarchy doesn't work well. It can be a pain in lonestarnot Sep 2014 #3
"Anarchy" and "anarchism" are not interchangeable terms. Ken Burch Sep 2014 #16
The current President would view any left-leaning popular movement as hostile. [n/t] Maedhros Sep 2014 #32
Possibly as terrorists. Enthusiast Sep 2014 #41
That's sort of how he viewed OWS, judging from the Federal coordination of the crackdown. [n/t] Maedhros Sep 2014 #42
That's where I got the idea. Enthusiast Sep 2014 #43
It's truly a disturbing notion. Maedhros Sep 2014 #47
first one has to have a really democratic president nt msongs Sep 2014 #4
If we had one of those, the question would be moot. n/t. Ken Burch Sep 2014 #13
Great Man Theory of History strikes again YoungDemCA Sep 2014 #69
Define "revolution" Prophet 451 Sep 2014 #5
I was talking about the first. n/t. Ken Burch Sep 2014 #14
That's surprising; I suggest you add that to the OP to make it clear muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #45
I don't think you understand what revolution is BainsBane Sep 2014 #6
Yes, it's against a state and a social order. Ken Burch Sep 2014 #12
No, my comments are not right-wing BainsBane Sep 2014 #17
Why are you dwelling on people complaining about HRC and WalMart? Ken Burch Sep 2014 #22
There is no 'Left' in the US leftstreet Sep 2014 #33
"having taught the subject at the college level" malokvale77 Sep 2014 #54
Yeah, I at least understand that BainsBane Sep 2014 #60
Your first paragraph was fine. If all your posts in this thread had been like that, Ken Burch Sep 2014 #63
Thank you for injecting some actual knowledge of history into this thread YoungDemCA Sep 2014 #65
Revolutions eat their children Recursion Sep 2014 #7
True, but Stalinism wouldn't happen here. Ken Burch Sep 2014 #10
Revolutions make their own logic; Germany was the most liberal European country for a while Recursion Sep 2014 #19
Yes, Germany was the most liberal country. Ken Burch Sep 2014 #21
Forget trying to make "them" understand malokvale77 Sep 2014 #55
Maybe you should be very afraid then malokvale77 Sep 2014 #56
Lead it RobertEarl Sep 2014 #8
Send Victoria Nuland CJCRANE Sep 2014 #9
Armchair revolutionaries BainsBane Sep 2014 #11
Again, I'm not TELLING people to revolt. Ken Burch Sep 2014 #15
Genovese was a Marxist radical BainsBane Sep 2014 #18
Genovese's point was bogus Ken Burch Sep 2014 #20
I didn't read the Genovese quote as an accusation of cowardice against slaves. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2014 #23
But that wasn't why people were asking the question Genovese condemns. Ken Burch Sep 2014 #25
"They wondered why Nat Turner was the only one" BainsBane Sep 2014 #59
The thing is, as far as I know, nobody actually WAS asking why Nat Turner was the only revolt leader Ken Burch Sep 2014 #62
Only two things, that I can see, will cause such a revolution steve2470 Sep 2014 #24
What if Spartacus had a Piper Cub? FSogol Sep 2014 #26
Bwahahaha!!!! JoePhilly Sep 2014 #27
Wait...I'm Spartacus. MineralMan Sep 2014 #35
maybe pull this behind it ... JoePhilly Sep 2014 #39
As long as it's really small... MineralMan Sep 2014 #48
If we had a real progressive Democratic president, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic House Louisiana1976 Sep 2014 #28
"If we had a real progressive Democratic President" YoungDemCA Sep 2014 #64
I'd join up. hifiguy Sep 2014 #29
that. is not how the major political parties run. if they are able to get a consensus that is what still_one Sep 2014 #30
Most Democrats are political weather vanes... conservaphobe Sep 2014 #31
Not a realistic proposition, so I can't vote. MineralMan Sep 2014 #34
See 1968 Democratic Convention for the precedent. Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2014 #36
Currently the young are not conscripted Skidmore Sep 2014 #38
The SHOULD join it, but in reality, most would crush it. Jamastiene Sep 2014 #37
I still have to wonder about it's focus. Xyzse Sep 2014 #40
Lead it (nt) bigwillq Sep 2014 #44
Other - negotiate with it, and call a constitutional convention muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #46
That is also an option. Ken Burch Sep 2014 #49
Since this such an unlikely hypothetical situation, I'll assume the good faith is obvious muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #51
It would only help the Republicans. baldguy Sep 2014 #50
How about the democratic party join the left, instead? Scootaloo Sep 2014 #52
There will always be people who would rather burn the village down in the name of "saving" it. baldguy Sep 2014 #58
Why should it? YoungDemCA Sep 2014 #68
If individuals can't gain power through elections they shouldn't take it by force. N/T Chathamization Sep 2014 #53
Join it but history shows only one had the foresight to do it, FDR. mmonk Sep 2014 #57
FDR did no such thing YoungDemCA Sep 2014 #66
when the left primaries Tom Carper I'll start considering their potential to lead a revolution nt geek tragedy Sep 2014 #61
Since the Democratic Party is neither revolutionary nor left-wing, why would a Dem POTUS do that? YoungDemCA Sep 2014 #67
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If there WAS a broad mass...»Reply #58