Why are Progressives always being told they must compromise

[Robbien]

DLCers and Blue Dog Democrats are always saying Progressives are too rigid and must compromise and go right. DLCers and Blue Dog Democrats say they do not support liberal ideas and that Progressives must give up their liberal ideas and accept DLC and Blue Dog control of the Democratic party.

If Progressives do not compromise, DLCers and Blue Dog Democrats call Progressives whiners, rigid and far left wackos.

And they keep complaining when Progressives do not readily give DLCers all their campaign contributions and donate all their time for DLC and Blue Dog campaigns.

[MazeRat7]

1. To compromise would make me "progressive"...

I am left of left in many aspects. That being said, I dont expect the rest of the world to live by my creed and I also recognize that beliefs and values are a continuum that has a wide spectrum. I often ask myself "where is my bottom line", "when can I not accept position x", or "is this a deal breaker" ? At the end of the day, I take the same approach I do in my career - I look at the total package and I ask is this a "stepping stone" to get to my ideal ?

You are right, many (not all) blue dogs and DLC types are asking for compromise. I suspect they too have a bit of analyst in them and are looking at the total package and trying to figure out how to make things just a few percentage points better. Not a home run, so to speak, just to get on base... to use a lame sports analogy. Sure I get frustrated as well with their "choices", but at the end of the day many of them are better than the right wings alternative.

So, rather than looking at concrete labels, step back and view the bigger picture. Our world is pretty fucked up and certainly not ready for your "progressive" or my "radical left" positions (I refuse to use the word "agenda" here, since that implies "will".). I despise "will" its so lower human- especially when run amuck...but I digress.

Things are as they are, we stand a much better chance of achieving "change" for the betterment of all if we focus on "attraction" rather than "promotion". The hard fact is that "attraction" is going to come from more moderate positions rather than those held by you are I. I don't like it one bit... I just hope it does not become a "deal breaker" in terms of my support.

MZr7

[Robbien]

3. So you are saying we all should unite

when DLCers and Blue Dogs voted for the Bankruptcy Act. Shame on the Progressives for dividing the party and voting no.

You say we should all unite when the DLCers and Blue Dogs voted for tort reform

and when they voted for the Real ID Act

and when they voted for the repeal of the inheritance tax

and when they voted for the Energy Bill

and when they voted for the torturer Gonzales.


Shame on the Progressives for dividing the Democratic party when they did not support the DLCers and Blue Dog Democrats by voting no.

We all all Democrats and should have supported them in their efforts. Progressives are too hung up on labels and should have supported their fellow Democrats.

Bull.

[MazeRat7]

8. No to all of the above, I think maybe you missed my point.....

A vote for/against is not always black and white.... I do not understand why the "current" dems in power have no spine and voted "for" things that we disagree with when they are the minority. They had nothing to lose and could have voted NO on principal as well. But apparently everything you listed was not a "deal breaker" for them or their districts. It certainly was for me and hence my statement about my future support of them. But I also suspect there might be things going on beyond the "black and white" nature of the vote itself.

If they want my money (eg my support) then they are going to have to move along that continuum more toward my end of the spectrum. Thats one direction of compromise. On the other hand, if when we are trying to get new dems elected in marginal red states... said votes will bite them in the ass. That is a different direction of compromise. I like to ask what is important "today"... those issues you listed or regaining control of the congress so we can make meaningful change in the future ? Keeping in mind that all those bills could be revisited later and amended.

I am just saying, its a complex problem and in "some" cases compromise is going to required in both directions. I dont like it, but that is the downside to looking at a larger picture. I damn sure am not going to sit by and hand more "power" to the repugs though no votes when I stood no chance to defeat the measure to start with.


MZr7


This is just my $.02... which I am sure is not worth... well about $.02 *grin

[Just Me]

6. One of the greatest posts I've ever read!!!

:yourock:

Agreeing on fundamental objectives which we all share is the goal. In so doing, we aren't "compromising" our ideals but rather we are uniting on,...well,...the big stuff that touches us all.

We can do that. We can!!! :bounce:

[noiretextatique]

7. your post illustrates something i've been thinking out a lot

if we don't believe in our own values...who will? you really don't know what people are ready for until you give them some options. of course bush, inc is all about limiting people's choices.

[MazeRat7]

10. Our values ? You mean your values.

Unfortunately, values and politics dont fit well together. Never compromise "your" values. Thats who you are. But to my original point, I can support a position that is not 100% aligned with my values if I think that position will move society closer to my values in the long term. Your right, when others know more about you (eg your values) it gives them the opportunity for debate and choice. They may not choose your same values in a wholesale manner, but more often than not they will choose a position that is closer to yours than theirs... why ? I like to think its because we (you) have a much deeper understanding of human value and worth than our opponents.... but I am just guessing. Compassion has always been paramount to democratic beliefs... I just cringe when I see that attribute co-opted by the other side.....


MZr7

[Just Me]

18. I believe, all human beings have "values" in common.

:shrug:

Strip every person of what they have and what they believed, and we all are left with something in common.

I, too, cringe at the word "compassion" being turned inside out by CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS who intentionally manipulate others for self-benefit. But, those culpable individuals certainly do not dictate fundamental human values: loving our family and friends, caring for the well-being of our community, advancing the quality of life for all.

Mean, stingy, manipulative power-mongers may work hard to distract good people from their own values in order to control them,...but those assholes can't steal fundamental human values because those values never, ever end.

[MazeRat7]

24. Self will run riot...

That is where the row lies, trying to define ourselves in relationship to the actions of others.

BTW... thanks for the very nice complement earlier in this post. I rarely get responses to anything I post...at least not favorable ones. *grin.

MZr7

[Just Me]

34. We can't do this life, alone. We can't.

That's an indisputable fact *LOL*. That fact doesn't diminish our individual contributions in thought and communication and action. To the contrary, our individual contributions are what leads to the absolute best progress through this process called "life". The minute any one of us decides our individual "truth" is more valuable,...is the minute that a break from progress occurs. We all do it (believe our "truth" is THE "truth") from time to time,...we cannot help ourselves.

However, when we become so cemented in our own rocks of passion,...we are no longer advancing or helping life,...rather, we become the very weights upon life that we started out opposing.

Being helpful requires flexibility and persistence, pragmatism and courage, patience and HOPE.

btw...I'm surprised you have received so little positive feedback. It's prolly 'cause there is a very destructive leadership inciting a great deal of emotion and passion and pain.

[MazeRat7]

35. Rocks of Passion.... now there's a song there. Mind if I borrow it ?

[Just Me]

37. Only if you'll acknowledge that it was conceived by "Just Me".

*GRIN* I won't ask for pennies on your dime *giggle*.

[noiretextatique]

56. politics devoid of values

is certainly what we've seen in action of late. we saw that in florida in 2000, and we saw that in the scotus decision. in fact, everything bush, inc and its enablers have done is devoid of morals and values.
how can you compromise with people who aren't interested in compromise?

[orpupilofnature57]

2. That's it' progressives, nullify liberal. Liberals have an agenda that

Doesn't include compromise, progressives open it for discussion.The liberal agenda calls for equality,freedom,opportunity, all things shrub and kkkarl hate, progressives open it for discussion.The whole concept of doing biz, as far as philosophies seems very republican.

[LoZoccolo]

4. Because they keep threatening to secede.

Which is neither progressive, nor democratic (small d).

[orpupilofnature57]

5. Exactly, they pose more of a threat to dems than to republicans.

[Robbien]

9. Because the DLC and Blue Dogs are Republicans with a D label

and if progressives will just shut up and play along, the corporate greed policy can rule both parties with the voting public being none the wiser while footing the entire bill.

[LoZoccolo]

31. Nope.

Not true.

[ulysses]

20. they'd largely stop

if they got a real hearing from the party once in a blue moon.

[LoZoccolo]

30. Get a hearing from the people first.

Then they can't ignore it.

Oh, that's too much work.

[ulysses]

32. what, like the DLC did?

:eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

33. I'm not talking about the DLC.

Am I?

[ulysses]

40. perhaps not,

but I am.

[LoZoccolo]

41. Doesn't help you to change the subject.

Doesn't help at all.

[ulysses]

42. doesn't help you to be hypocritical.

Why are progressives required to "get a hearing from the people first", but the DLC isn't?

Don't bother answering, because we already know. It's the money.

[LoZoccolo]

43. Because people already generally understand moderate opinions.

And the recent Pew Research study shows that more people want the party to move in a moderate direction.

You act like I'm the arbiter, or that I'm pretending to be the arbiter, of who has to do what to get their agenda fulfilled, and thus it shows that you simply do not understand my point. What needs to be done to get people to vote a certain way and think of certain issues as important has nothing to do with what you or I or "progressives" or the DLC or anyone think should be a token or minimum prerequisite for it. If you want support for something, go get it. If you don't want to do that, then please don't spend your time vicitimizing the people that do depend on the real differences between the parties for sake of your inaction.

People sit around bitching on the Internet about how the party doesn't do this or that that they want, and yet spend no time at all convincing people of their agenda, which leads me to believe that a lot of these "progressives" are largely about vainly showing off how enlightened they think they are.

[orpupilofnature57]

44. Misnomer ,understand= selfish interests

[LoZoccolo]

46. You'll have to elaborate.

I don't speak "sloganization", so I'm not sure if I understand completely.

Either way, if you really think that's the way people are, and you don't like it, you're going to have to change it if you want to see it change. Complaining that the Democratic Party doesn't toss you a bone does nothing.

[orpupilofnature57]

47. Sure, I mean giving in to opposition your not compromising, your losing...

Compromise is an end result, not a way to progress.

[LoZoccolo]

48. I don't even know if we're talking about the same thing.

I can't even figure out of if you think compromising is better than losing from what you said.

[orpupilofnature57]

49. I meant to distinguish between understanding and self-interest.

[blm]

11. progress is only made when you actually move forward.

Sometimes that means compromise. Its the difference between waging a battle for gay marriage or working to get civil unions. Civil unions IS progress. We'd LOVE for it to be full marriage rights, but, civil unions at this point in time would be tremendous PROGRESS.

Some call civil unions a sellout. I call it progress. Do you take what steps forward you can or do you hold out with less in wait for something more that may never happen?

[orpupilofnature57]

12. Moving forward to wards what? Liberal is the word villainous to the,idiot

Progressive is ambiguous in definition and function.

[blm]

13. Towards success. Success is based on opportunity, not perfection.

In the real world, anyway.

[orpupilofnature57]

14. Welcome to shrubs world, due to a weak opposition, Compromised!

Forward for who??**

[blm]

16. I think 99% of the gays in this country would call civil unions progress.

You may not.

And how do we know the opposition is as weak as perceived if the perceptions are always shaped by a fascist media?

Would Bush have so much control if the media was honest and fair in its supposed mission to report facts and share information with the citizens?

[orpupilofnature57]

19. We agree about the media, And good enough,is the biggest Enemy

to, the best.

[Misunderestimator]

39. Hardly. Not if having them makes it more difficult to get FULL equality.

Which such a compromise definitely does. It makes some progressives feel that they've done something good for gays, while offering them not ONE single federal right that comes with a heterosexual union. Let's give them civil unions, but meanwhile let's write amendments into all the constitutions that will make such unions moot. Right... that's progress.

[blm]

50. I mean as a step TOWARDS the goal, not as a goal itself.

If the country lived with civil unions for a ndecade or so, the public could better see the ridiculousness of those fighting to keep them from marrying.

Progress is whatever moves you towards the actual goal. You can't say, well, we haven't reached the goal, so covering half the distance doesn't count as progress. er....Well, you could, but it wouldn't be logical.

[orpupilofnature57]

51. And with that logic, we got shrub.

YOUR PROGRESS IS ONLY GOOD IN HORSE SHOES AND HAND GRENADES.

[Misunderestimator]

52. But it's a trick... we stay on this path and EVERY state will be proposing

anti-gay amendments to their constitutions. It's already happened. Civil Unions would mean NOTHING in a state that passes such an amendment.

The "steps" that SHOULD be taken should be on the road to full equality. Civil Unions are down an entirely different road. We have moved BACKWARDs from the original goal. Why do you think the religious right would accept civil unions any more than gay marriage? They won't. And having such unions that are not the same as marriage further separates us from the perception that we are "normal" that somehow we aren't deserving of the same FEDERAL RIGHTS AS EVERYONE ELSE.

A civil union would do NOTHING for me, and I would never enter into any pretend-marriage contract that did not give me all the benefits of marriage. MY concern is with the federal rights. Just give me a couple of them ... like Social Security Survivor Benefits and transfer of property rights, and THEN I would feel that we had made a step in the right direction.

[orpupilofnature57]

54. Agreed, dangerous times. Remember our arguing is worth more than

THEIR agreeing

[blm]

55. I think the rr is at the height of their power and backlash is developing

against their priorities.

My view is that once the civil unions hurdle is passed then marriage will be the next logical step for the public who sees that the sky has not fallen.

[Just Me]

22. Excellent, "rational" point.

Nothing lasting and meaningful is built on anyone's clock,...strong foundations take time and persistence and commitment.

[Cleita]

15. Because it's the Republican lockstep mentality.

Those "Democrats" you speak of are renegades from the Republican Party, not real progressives, so it makes sense that they don't understand us lefties. It's time they compromised with us, not the other way around.

[Doc Bottom]

17. Why? I'd say

It's because if you ask somebody to compromise often enough, and accuse them of refusing to compromise, and snark on the subject loudly enough, you just might create a situation where nobody notices your own refusal to compromise, and so blames the impasse on your opponent.

[orpupilofnature57]

21. Kkkarl Rove didn't invent it, but he's mastered it, Doubt.

[Just Me]

23. *LOL* That's some brain-wrapping strategy there!!!!

Precisely the kind of warped strategy that has been waged.

Kinda' pisses me off,...too often.

I've always asked how anyone can possibly debate a liar. It's impossible,...until you nail them to the lies, in public. But, they'll just keep on lying,...kicking and screaming and lying,...and swear they're telling the truth until CONSEQUENCES kicked them squarely in the pants,...and, even after the consequences, there are those who will lie to their death.

[Doc Bottom]

25. What consequences?

Most of the time there aren't any.

Lie, lie, lie, in enormous fucking headlines blaring out of the radio and scraping vast curls of blue paint off the sky.

that wasn't actually true, whispered gently as a the cooing of a tame dove as it takes a dump on the second page of the New York Times.

And nobody really calls them on it. The lie, having been repeated more often and more loudly than the truth, persists in the people's mind like an insidious principle of advertising. Or of propaganda.

[orpupilofnature57]

26. Propaganda, is easier to digest than cold, hard and mundane truth....

Doesn't play well for " fascist Media".kkkarl lulls them into a hypnotic state of well-being.

[Doc Bottom]

27. Not really.

They just belong to the same corporate forces that own the administration. And manufacturing or repeating propaganda is easier than actually investigating for truth.

[Just Me]

36. Seriously,...the lies are easier to digest by those betrayed by them.

Betrayal,...especially on the level we speak of,...is a TOUGH and PAINFUL reality to confront. Think about it.

[Wizard777]

28. Progressive or moderate are positions of compromise.

What else can you do when your caught in the middle? Duck or jump and that's about it.

[orpupilofnature57]

45. The middle + the Right= Shrub

[Eloriel]

29. If I may, you expressed it so much better in your original post --

in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3570459#3570947

When Blue Dog Democrats have joined hands with the GOP
where so far this year in the House, 50 Democrats helped pass class action reform, 42 joined in legislation repealing the inheritence tax, 73 supported the bankruptcy bill, 42 Democrats broke ranks on the Real ID bill, and last week, 41 joined the Republicans on the final version of the energy bill.

These are people who have no beliefs in common with progressives and by their actions knock out the legs from under progressive programs.

Why is it that these DLCers and Blue Dog Democrats always say it must be progressives who have to compromise and back their programs. When it comes to supporting progressive programs, they are no where in sight. In fact they are in the back room with GOP making deals to undercut progressive programs.

[Terran1212]

38. Because Conservatives want their way...

Those who want change are supposed to be the "radicals" not the ones who want to bring us back to the Stone Age.

[gpandas]

53. the lesser of two weasles... n/t