Progressives: Moving from what we are against to what we are for!

[Selwynn]

I posted this on some other boards, in response to a thread that was once again, for the 8 billionth time, complaining about how Kerry and Bush are the same, and the democrat and republican parties are just two wings of the same corporate system, etc. etc. This is my response:

-----
I think statement was very appropriate - that "we're all a little defensive about our choices these days, since none of them are even close to satisfactory. Some members are putting each other down because of it."

We ought to be able to agree on a couple starting princples that would make discourse so much more humane. First, we ought to be able to agree that the questions about how to do the right thing politically, how to not just speak rhetoric about, but actually assist in creating real change is incredbily complciated, and there are no simplistic answers.

Second, we ought to be able to agree that the bulk of people here want a better more just, more humane society in which people are treated like people, and where our presence in the world is one of peace rather than agression.

To me it seems like those are pretty strong agreements. It would seem like with those agreements in place, we could have far more civil discourse about our disagreement.

I've made carefully considered decision to vote against Bush by voting for Kerry this year, because in the final analysis I can convinced it is the choice that best honors my beliefs and commitments overall. I do this not because I love Kerry, nor becuase I believe that there are not similarities between the two parties' candidates. So posting over and over again trying to expose me to the fact that the system is all messed up and Kerry is a crud, and he's just part of the same machine that bush is a part of is not going to result in anything productive. Because in the end, I do not agree that there are no differences between the candidates. There are differences, and electing a president is not a one issue decision.

There is nothing that makes me more frustrated than when Republican people I know vote Republican for literally one reason, and one reason alone: Abortion. It anger's me when they ignore every other critical and serious issue out there and vote only based on one single issue. But it makes me equally as frustrated when Democrats do the same thing. Across the spectrum of all the issues that I believe are critically important, there are indeed differences between the candidates.

So for me, the question because: are the diffences sufficient to influence my vote? They can be sufficent in a positive or negative way. For example, the positive differences between Kerry and Bush could be sufficient enough that I believe I would want to vote for him more than Bush *and* more than a third party candidate. But in this election year, it is the negative differences. The negative differences bewteen Bush and Kerry can be so serious, that I would want to vote for Kerry more than Bush or a third party candidate which might inadvertantly aide Bush.

So there's the rub: I am not confused about the failures of the democratic party, nor am I in the dark about the shortcomings of the John Kerry candidacy. And I guess that's why I get frustrated about conversations here, becuase the same tired old points are given over and over again that completely miss the point. The point is this: I believe that the negative aspects of the Bush administration create a sufficient differecne between Bush and Kerry, and further, I believe that the negative aspects of the current administration are so horrific that it necessitates casting my vote in such a way that best garuntees the defeat of Bush.

The only argument that has ever been fairly made here is the argument that there will always be some great "evil" person to vote against, to keep people from voting for third parties. But this argument is irrelevant and inaccurate on two points. First of all, my perspective is not that this is just another election like any other. I have voted for third party candidates in the past. I did not feel the way I feel about Bush when Regan was the candidate. I did not feel the way I feel now about Bush Sr.'s candidancy or Administration. I did not feel the same way about Dole's Candidacy. I didn't like these guys, but I did not feel this way about it.

In fact, this is the first time I have ever felt that an administration is so horribly bad that removing them from power is the most important goal. So there is no historical trend that supports the idea that there is always something that has to be voted against - I certianly have not felt like that in the past. What's more if you are speculating that this is how it will from now on, I can't speculate or guess aobut the future. All I know is that right now, I believe this is the worst, most destructive and most dangerous administration of my lifetime, and reguardless of the insufficiency of Kerry's candidacy, I do not feel that he exists on that same plane.

I haven't made the decision I've made because I haven't thought about things. I haven't made the decision I've made because I really hate democracy or don't believe in progressive ideals. I'm doing what I'm doing because I believe, in a world where decisions are unbelievably complicated, and choices are never perfect, I believe that this is right.

As I have said many times, the "revolution" will never start in the white house anyway. Its not going start by just posting non stop self-affirmation articles about how corporations have taken over, and the two parties are the same. It's not going to start until we can move from our endless descriptions of the problems and towards PRESCRIPTIONS FOR SOLUTIONS.

It is theraputic and soothing to rally around each other and gripe about everything. It feels good to speak negatively about the things the we see are wrong, and find yet another good article bitching about the evils of corporatism or warmongering or the power elite. It makes us feel like we're actually doing something when we just post endless commentary describing everything that's wrong. But it isn't worth much practically. Isn't it time to start talking about what we're really for and how to turn that into realtiy?

I don't believe that process starts in a campaign for the white house with no base, not support, no changing of public opinion. I believe that process starts when we stop acting like a self congratulatory cliquey club that says, "hey come over tonight, we'll sit around and rank out the system and point out all the problems in society again!" and instead start hitting the streets saying, "I'm done hanging out in our little clubs bitching about what's wrong - I'm taking to the streets in my own home town to build a movement of progressive revolution form the ground up. I'm heading out to change hearts and minds - how? By telling them what we should be FOR - NOT JUST all we're against. The getting these people elected to city councils and school boards, and putting them into local media and on the radio, and into state legilatures and into the courts, and sent to Washington, and then - then - elected president with a majority based of a progressive nation.

Is that possible? Don't know - and we'll never known until we start serious grassroot transformation of the hearts and mind of the public. And I wish that in the process, we could respect each other's points of view a little bit more, and remember that whether you agree with HOW I'm tring to do what I feel best honors my larger progressive goals, I am in fact trying to honor those goals, same as you. If you can do that for me, and disagree with my choices respectfully rather than with blind and cliche hostility, I will promise to do the very same.

And then maybe we could talk about how to create change. That's what I wish the site was called. People CREATING Change, not just people passively for it, in a rhetorical sense.

Edit - crap, forgot to spell check and can't do it on edit

[Selwynn]

1. kick