Yes! NY Observer says it right out in the open....time to fight now.

[madfloridian]

Perhaps Hoffman hits the nail on the head, perhaps this explains the bickering and the infighting here. Maybe it is needed now, because we are in trouble in this country. Maybe it is just not possible now to accept the status quo. Maybe we need to embrace the L word again, and stir things up...maybe that is why it is so crazy here.

Now is not the time for national unity.
http://www.observer.com/pages/observer.asp

SNIP..."A little disunity, please. Let’s get divisive, gang. No national healing—raw wounds, anger and resentment. This is the moment for accusations and recriminations."

SNIP.."Yeah, yeah, yeah, link arms with George W. Bush and … and what? Mr. Kerry’s answer was forget politics and take it up with the local divinity. I leave this campaign with a prayer that has even greater meaning to me now that I’ve come to know our vast country so much better thanks to all of you, and what a privilege it has been to do so," he said. "And that prayer is very simple: God bless America."

Unity and prayer. I cannot think of a less helpful farewell sentiment to leave the many thousands of first-time Democratic volunteers with. Let’s talk about unity and prayer...."

SNIP..."First, unity. If you are a professional Democratic politician, "unity" translates into making the best deal for yourself with the other side, double-talking the volunteers who busted their butts for Mr. Kerry and refusing to tolerate, whatever else may come, any kind of looking back on Mr. Kerry and the kind of campaign he ran.

The party leaders—such as they are—knocked out Howard Dean and swung behind Mr. Kerry because they thought he could win. Think back to last winter and early spring, when that argument was repeatedly used for the longtime, non-standout Senator from Massachusetts. He could win and the crazy cuckoo-loco from Vermont had no chance...."

SNIP.." Let us talk about religion and reaction in America, now and then. The alliance between the Republicans and the churches is no new thing: The Christian clergy has a long history of siding with the big money and the powerful. Be meek and get your butt kicked. The job of taking on organized religion should not be left to well-meaning but ineffectual groups working on keeping church and state separated. This is much bigger, more insidious and more dangerous than dragging a stone with the Ten Commandments on it in front of the courthouse.

From defeat, if we can take nothing else, take disunity, division and a refusal to shut down the liberal spirit. And one more thing: The next time you hear a politician call for prayer or give a "God bless," boo!"END SNIP

I remember how it inspired us to hear Dean bravely pointing out that Bush had appealed to homophobia, sexism, and racism. It was therapeutic when he said Jerry Falwell was not a very nice man. Maybe that is what we need....some real fervor and righteous indignation.

[pnorman]

1. Not every Bush-voter is our enemy, but this one certainly is:

http://www.adamyoshida.com/2004/11/four-more-years-aka-take-that-you-sons.html

Bide our time with no unseemly screaming, but be alert and prepared for that sort of "unity".

pnorman

[madfloridian]

3. Adam Yoshida is not our boss. You are saying be careful?

Is that what you are saying? Adam has been our enemy forever, and he will always be that. I ignore him...

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying.

[pnorman]

4. I was originally planning on writing:

"THIS is the face of our enemy", but reworded it. I found that link on DU several days ago, and have been passing it around to remind some that we're still at WAR. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

pnorman

[madfloridian]

5. Thanks, yes we are for sure.

I refuse to link to Adam's site anymore. Thanks for clarifying.

[knight_of_the_star]

11. Yoshida can go jump in a lake

I don't give a shit what a lickspittle arrogant pissweed puke like him thinks WE should do. What I think we should do is throw some dirt in their eyes and plant a knife in ther collective backs while they aren't looking.

[Cat Atomic]

13. I'd never heard of the guy before you posted that link- but did you

read his follow-up? It's from a few days later. Here's a a small snippet:

"About a week ago, after several exhausting days, I wrote a piece entitled “Four More Years: AKA Take That You Sons of Bitches.” It was written in a state of rage. It was also, in my personal opinion, the least well-written and least-coherent major piece that I’ve written in quote some time. Naturally, then, it also quickly became the most read."

Yoshida claims that it was written in a "state of rage", but he had nothing to be angry about at the time. After all, Bush had won.

That piece was written in a moment of exhuberant candor. He was encouraged by the Republican gains, and felt that he could finally remove all pretense and just openly espouse his totalitarian fantasies. Rage, my ass.

I'm saving that original piece and passing it around.

[charlie]

22. Adam's good for a bit of amusement

But no one takes him seriously. He's a young Canadian dork, long renowned for his insanity. He and his writings have been banned at FreeRepublic for being too kookoo.

[NoPasaran]

28. He's our enemy, but not a Bush voter

That particular asshat is Canadian.

[The Wielding Truth]

32. This was written Nov 3. I think it would bother me more if it were

posted today. He is frantic and boastful and wants to rub it in.I hope that now that he has removed his white sheet he will see things less "so there - in your face". Sad that his has bought into all the Rove lies about us. He is clueless and will someday grow up.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Word to teh wise

the last time an eiditorial like this apeared any where in a US paper was... oh after the election of Abe Lincoln. So far we have seen this snarky mood from places like Hate the south and other web pages... this is a paper

Yes Virginia that cold air you are feeling right now is not the cold autom air, but the kind of air that precedes a hot war....

[saracat]

6. Why do you always spell "the" teh?

[m berst]

8. don't know if I am one of the wise

Interesting observation nb. I do believe you are correct in this.

Is the article a symptom, or a provocation? Have things moved too far down the road to stop the collision? I am amazed talking to Republican voters how difficult it is to reach them and how far apart we are. Then I come here and see people in a war-like mood, too.

I think that maintaining a firm resolve, and standing up for principle, is different than fueling hatred and provoking a confrontation. So while I applaud liberals who don't roll over, I don't like to see "repuke" and Christian baiting and bashing Southerners. On the other hand, does treating the rank and file Republican voter with respect mean caving in? I don't think so.

Most here seem to be seeing things two-dimensionally - either we are real tough in which case anything goes and all bets are off; or we are decent and civilized in which case we grovel and fawn and cave in.

[madfloridian]

9. I have always been decent and civilized.....I just lost my country.

I am a Christian, I have been called unpatriotic by fellow Christians because I did not support the holy war on Iraq. I am totally civilized and sane and intelligent.....and mad as hell.

You do not get the message of the article, I fear.

And oh, BTW, I do treat others with respect, and it allows them to just insult me more.

I think you missed the sense of the article.

[m berst]

25. I was just musing

"I think you missed the sense of the article."

I was replying more to nb than to the article.

I am interested, though, to hear what message you get from the article. I agree that it raises some inportant issues.

[madfloridian]

36. The message I get.

Is that it is time to be angry. Past time. I think it says just what we have been feeling here. We for years have tried agreeing, promoting their agendas, going into a war that they knew was wrong.

We are in a mess in this country, and we are supposed to be the party of opposition. We have become the party of appeasement, and it is just not working.

Same song, 2nd verse.

[chicagiana]

16. How can you convince someone of your position ...

... when you call them ingorant and hateful!!!

They very well MAY be ignorant and hateful. But school rarely begins with an explanation to students of exactly how stupid they are.

[Garbo 2004]

7. Thanks for the link to the article.

Good point here:

"Unity and prayer. Unity in our situation means endorsing aggression, invasion, torture and assassination. It means indifference to the working poor, the fastest-growing major segment in our population."

[madfloridian]

10. Yes, like our support for the genocide in Fallujah.

There will be hell to pay for all this unity we have.

[sickofit2]

12. I think we here and others

who think like DUers are naturally dissenters. One would have to be to not go along with the status quo of control etc... This is not the time to "pray" and unify. It is what the machine wants us to do but if we had always done that where would we be? This is the time for the ones who see through the illusion to dissent and break away from the sheep. When ever I hear anyone say we must unify and put the past to the past and do it for our "country" I see a red flag. We are not sheep here and most of us probably never were....

[sangh0]

14. Not bad for someone who calls Arabs "camel jockeys"

http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=9261

[Jim Warren]

27. Was it sarcasm or "sarcasm"?

I wonder wot he meant, uhuh????

[sangh0]

33. I wondered the same thing

.

[chicagiana]

15. Politics is NOT idealism ...

Politics about creating a majority consensus group ... PERIOD!!!! If you're NOT willing to compromise some of your values, you will alienate the groups that could help you achieve MOST of your agenda!!!

You cannot get EVERYTHING you want. But you can get some of it. And it's better to settle for half than insist on having everything and getting LESS THAN nothing!!

People who refuse to understand this will find themselves OUT of power and find their agendas moving backwards.

[Selwynn]

17. Freedom in non-essentials, AGREEMENT IN ESSENTIALS!

You need to get a critical phrase through your head.

Freedom in non-essentials; AGREEMENT IN ESSENTIALS.

Meaning, of course we need to understand the difference between politically negotiable issues and fundamental principles of right and wrong. But you're sadly obtuse if you think anyone hear is saying any different.

It is not "idealism" to refused to sacrifice things which cannot be morally compromised. That is just called being a good person and doing what's right. It is not "idealism" to refuse to support discrimination. It is not idealism to refuse to "compromise" on issues of murder or criminality. People who like to wax eloquent about "out of touch idealism" need to get a fucking grip and learn the difference between essentials which cannot be compromised without selling your soul and non-essentials where compromise can be made.

You can -- and you morally must - stand for everything that is an issue or principled right and wrong, justice and injustice, rights or rights denied. To not do that is to sell your soul, betray your ethics, sacrifice your decency and sell of your humanity to the highest bidder. At the same time, you must also identify the nuances of the particulars and learn to negotiate details and non-essentials together with willing partners. But if someone wants me to support a law that discriminates against someone else - I can't compromise on that. That is a moral wrong that betrays the very core of this country's principles. There can be no compromise on that point. And I would rather lose and remain true to what I know to be just and right than win by sacrificing and betraying over thing I know to be true.

Have a nice day.
Sel

[sangh0]

18. Without knowing what was referenced by "out of touch idealism"

I think it's premature to criticize on the assumption that the poster was advocating that we support some form(s) of discrimination. When I read that post, I thought of how some DUers argue that Dems should, no make that MUST, call bush* a "liar" (and no other word will do) as a "matter of principle"

I've seen even more insignificant issues described as "matters of principle" on DU. I have even heard some DUers say that Dems can NOT speak about religion, as a "matter of principle"

[Selwynn]

19. Sorry - let me clarify.

I didn't mean to imply that this poster was specifically suggesting that we should endorse discrimination.

I do feel that that there is a dangerous and dismissive attitude often expressed when it comes to standing up for what is right. Some people immediately cry "idealism" and begin to preach about how we must compromise.

The reality is, "freedom in non-essentials, but agreement in essentials" is the wisest, most important philosophy we can adopt when it comes to our political stances and tactics.

I apologize if I sounded like I was directly accusing the OP of unjust attitudes. I was thinking conceptually of the fact that there are many many issues on which "compromise" is not possible.

Thanks,
Sel

[chicagiana]

20. If that ideal looses you the election ...

If open proposition of the ideal loses you the election, than you'd better hide it and be sneaky about implementing it!!!

Those are the REALITIES of politics. And if you think you're so right, than why did we loose the presidency AND loose seats in each house of congress???

Yeah sure, stand on your principles and get pummelled by the electorate.


Look, there is a difference between activism and politics. Activists can say whatever they like because they aren't standing up to a vote. Politicians have to get elected to do any good. That means they have to harness a majority consensus. They HAVE to compromise and ANYTHING that serves the greater good (in their world view).

One may loose their soul if they compromise an "essential". But they can loose a LOT more to their constituency if they let the other side have their way!!!

Democracy is about COMPROMISE. If you're not willing to compromise, you have no business in the American political system. And if you're wondering WHAT issues to compromise, it's the one's that your would be allies just won't go along with!!!

Standing on principle ultimately undermines your principles in the political world. THIS is the reality. If your unwilling to sacrifice something of value for the greater good, you will find yourself without allies and ALL your principles will be 100% compromised.

[Selwynn]

24. Answer to one part:

"Those are the REALITIES of politics. And if you think you're so right, than why did we loose the presidency AND loose seats in each house of congress???"

Well seeing as how I saw a grand total of NO ONE standing up for most of the principles that I believe to be morally uncompromisable, I can't really connect our losses to standing by core principles. We've done little but consistently compromise, and lost doing it.

"Standing on principle ultimately undermines your principles in the political world. THIS is the reality. If your unwilling to sacrifice something of value for the greater good, you will find yourself without allies and ALL your principles will be 100% compromised."

Tell that to Martin Luther King Jr. Yes, he was shot. But he also had a great effect. Was it a final, perfect effect? No. But it was critical. I'm willing to be shot to stand for what is right.

"One may loose their soul if they compromise an "essential". But they can loose a LOT more to their constituency if they let the other side have their way!!!"

We don't have any remote agreement yet on what actually is an essential. Until we have that, we're really just talking past each other. Is it ok to support a policy of legalized rape because it might be more popular and a more "winning" position? Or is it simply unacceptable? An extreme analogy, but its important to start there and establish some bed rock agreement that you can't stand for some things and deserve to be elected. If I am personally against the extermination of "undesirables" in this country - I certainly can't "compromise" my principle in order to win, even if we lived in a time and a place where that was a popular position. It is wrong, it will always be wrong, and nothing good can come from "compromising" to endorse crimes against humanity.

I don't agree that you lose a lot more than your soul to allow "their constituency if you let the other side have their way" when you become the other side to win. I would resist you as fiercely as I resist them in that case.

Sel

[sangh0]

21. I didn't think you were being unfair or accusing anyone of anything

I've just noticed a tendency on DU that whenever anyone suggests that some people's "idealism" might be something other than that, there's an immediate response that assumes the person is calling for compromise on real "ideals"

AS our experiences with the TheoCons demonstrate, some things are called "moral" or "ethical" or "principled" even though it is not.

on edit: I also have a problem listening to an argument about values, ideals, etc when the author is someone who uses racial epithets like "camel jockey"

[m berst]

23. yep

That is the argument against liberalism in a nut shell.

You can't put together coalitions to "win" when you have no ideals.

I remember the days when liberalism meant idealism. We won elections back then, too.

Make a graph with two curves. One showing Dems "getting practical" and the other showing Dem wins. Getting practical doesn't lead to wins, as you will soon see, it is directly related to losing.

Politics is not business, and the supposed "wisdom" from business school doesn't apply.

Don't scream at us either, please, and don't presume that you have all of the answers and are in any position to lecture us, especially those of us who have been involved for 40 years. Liberals discus and weigh issues carefully and listen to others. Right wingers scream and simplify issues and try to pound them into other peoples's heads.

[Selwynn]

26. yep.

Damn.

:toast:

[sangh0]

29. "Getting practical doesn't lead to wins" Really?

Tell that to FDR and Clinton

[m berst]

30. I'm in trouble now - hey sang0

I only fear 3 or 4 people here because of their phenomenal ability to think critically and to brilliantly present their arguments. :-)

I would say in response that the Clinton and FDR are not very similar cases, at least that I can see.

I am not arguing against practicality, I am arguing against putting practicality before ideals. It seems to me that the party has lost track of its ideals. Witness what a struggle it is here among Dems often to defend traditional liberal ideals. Somehow the party leadership is not covering the fundamentals of liberalism is such a way that the younger rank and file Dem voters have a very good grasp of liberalism. As we lose election after election, shouldn't we wonder about the practicality of the strategy as well? We abandon ideals for practical results, and are now winding up losing both ideals and results.

Once we have a solid base of agreement on the ideals and principles of liberalism, then of course we need to focus on being as practical as possible. Most of the disagreements that I have gotten into with people here, though, are not about tactics or strategy. I find myself defending liberalism itself - or at least liberalsim as it was 40 to 50 years ago.

Explain more if you would why you used FDR and Clinton together as examples of practicality over ideals.

[sangh0]

31. DOn't worry

You do a pretty good job of presenting your case, also.

Basically, Clinton was willing to compromise his principles by signing the Welfare Reform bill. He didn't like it, but he knew it was the best he could do. He was willing to "sacrifice a principle" to achieve a partial benefit. (And btw, I think there's a principle involved in being willing to "compromise one's principles" in order to gain some benefit for others)

Before WWII began, FDR constantly claimed that he was not going to get this nation involved in one of "Europe's Wars" because he knew that public opinion at that time would not allow the US to help the Europeans against Hitler. At the same time thoug, FDR was intent on getting the US prepared to get involved in a war in Europe because he was one of the first world leaders to recognize the threat Hitler posed, and he felt that war with Hitler was inevitable. In order to insure that public opinion was not inflamed so much as to make it impossible for us to enter the war, he refused to allow the St. Louis, an ocean liner filled with Jewish refugees from Germany, to drop anchor in a US harbor. The ST. Louis eventually docked back in Europe (Holland, maybe?) where later in the war, many were captured by the Germans and killed.

Not very principled, is it?

[m berst]

34. point taken

I probably should say that compromising doesn't always lead to wins, and that I see too many Democrats as being too quick to compromise on too many things.

I am familiar with the story about the St. Louis, and it was a very cynical move.

I would draw a distinction between compromising on means and appearances, and giving away the farm. Of course historically liberals and progressives have had to do some horse-trading and some political pr work and use pragmatic tactics. The test for whether any of those are good or bad needs to take into account the ultimate results that were achieved by the pragmatism. No sense in compromising if you wind up the same place you would have had you not bothered at all. We wouldn't want to fly on idealism alone, but I see the problem now as too much pragmatism and not enough idealism. Many Dem voters cannot even explain liberal and Democratic party ideals, but can talk all day about prgamatic strategy and tactics. Wecare so engaged by the "how" that we have lost sight of the "why" - and the "why" question isn't answered by saying that the other side is worse.

[sangh0]

35. Yes, balance

I probably should say that compromising doesn't always lead to wins,

"Always" is often the wrong word to use without a negative in front of it.

I am familiar with the story about the St. Louis, and it was a very cynical move.

Yes, but it may very well have saved even more lives by insuring we wouldn't be kept out of WWII by isolationism.

I would draw a distinction between compromising on means and appearances, and giving away the farm.

Distinctions are always (breaking my own advice) good, as long as they're accurate and relevant (saved myself with a qualifier)

The test for whether any of those are good or bad needs to take into account the ultimate results that were achieved by the pragmatism

Bingo! Though good ends won't justify evil means, no good end justifies nothing. "Taking a stand" can be a good thing, but usually only if it moves the debate forward. If it achieves nothing, then how can it be justified?

All of these people we call "leaders" are human beings. MLK cheated on his wife, Gandhi beat his wife, etc. Even worse, many of the "leaders" are politicians. I don't expect them to be uncompromising. I judge them by what they achieve.