When it comes to politics, I prefer realism over fantasy.

[cali]

Change will not come quickly, and incremental change in the right direction is better than no change at all.

Getting corporate money out of politics is a long term goal.

Candidates perceived as too far to the left or the right will not get elected. Not next year and probably, never.

Impeachment, at this point in time, is unlikely. I may not like that, but I know it's a fact.

The dynamics of a race can change quickly. A devastating story can turn the fortunes of a front runner, overnight.

Realistically, you can't recall a Senator or Representative to Congress. You can't force Congress to choose the leadership you want.

The electorate of this country is neither liberal or conservative, but a complex mixture.

Nebraska is not California, and Mississippi is not Vermont. The composition of electorate in varying states, differs widely.

Bloody revolution is not the answer to the problems we face.

There's more, but you get the idea.

And finally:

Pragmatism is not a lack of idealism. Both are needed, but idealism without recognizing what is and isn't possible, has no impact.

[rucky]

1. Product vs. Process

we won't know what will happen until we try it. the Republicans prove this time and time again with the unreal shit they pull - successfully.

[cali]

3. I don't know what unreal things you're talking about.

and I wish you'd elaborate on product v process. I have a glimmer of what I think you mean, but I need it filled out.

[rucky]

34. the old discussion of ends vs means

destination or journey?

the debate on what's more important. it is true that impeachment probably won't happen, but the process of impeachment will set forth a hundred different variables that will work in our favor. Investigations, media coverage, building of public support from people waiting in the wings for something like this to happen. Plus it offers reassurance that - at the very least - there are some leaders who seek justice in a corrupt system.

The example that comes to mind is the recall of Gray Davis. It came out of nowhere, and it was launched by political operatives - not "we the people". Yet it caught on - it happened - then under unbelievable circumstances (Democratically controlled house, senate and governor's mansion) Arnold fucking Schwartzenegger was elected. Davis wasn't the best governor, but he was far from the worst (google: Pete Wilson and Enron) and his offenses were not impeachable like Cheney's.

We need to get the ball rolling if we want our odds of success to change. I'm not counting on the election to restore balance - 2006 should've shown us that. We got our product (majority) - where's the process?

[rucky]

33. wrong place

[R_M]

2. Very true. Change in civil societies comes slowly.

[Solon]

4. It also matters in what arena you are being realistic...

There's political reality, and then there's practical reality. To give an example, single payer health insurance is the most cost effective way to ensure all Americans can have full access to health care, without absorbing large costs individually. However, from a political standpoint, such a system is almost untenable to pass even an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress with a Democratic President. So, from a political reality standpoint, its an unrealistic program, at least right now.

However, conversely, we have "transitional" programs, that, when I read them, seem to be products of inefficiency, and there is no real world examples as to how they would work on a large scale, something a single payer system already has. The fact is that they have problems that, while they may pass into law, and be implemented as programs, may not work at all. This could be worse than we can possibly imagine, and could set back meaningful health care reform for a decade. This is part of the reason why I get so frustrated with "political reality" it seems completely removed for the real world itself. I care about what works, not idealism.

[cali]

6. those are good points.

and I largely agree that political reality is often jarringly different than what would work in the real world.

[Solon]

10. Another example would be the War on (Some) Drugs...

Which just seems to me to be a big waste of money and time. Both in funding the enforcement and building new prisons to hold people that are, at worse, only dangerous to themselves. To be frank about it, if people want to take any type of mind altering substance, as long as they do it in a responsible manner, and don't endanger others, I don't care.

Then we have political fantasies, mostly created by the right wing, examples include the Partial-Birth Abortion debate, about an procedure that doesn't exist in the real world. Claiming Prayer is banned in public schools and a few other issues also come to mind here. Its frustrating when such issue become an issue that needs to be debated in the public sphere, its a waste of time, money, and can have overreaching consequences that would be negative to the population at large. We have laws that get passed that are nothing but feel good political posturing, and all I think is that these politicians are paid way too much to debate over bullshit.

[Solon]

23. Another example would be energy policy...

and most social policies to combat crime.

On energy, we see this huge push, politically and economically, to go to a hydrogen based economy. The problem is that this is impossible, its like going to a battery based economy. Hydrogen, and fuel cells, are extremely inefficient ways to store energy, and they produce no energy by themselves. We don't have a practical energy policy, from either political party, instead we see energy policies that are products of Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas companies who wish to cash in as much as possible, regardless of the consequences society will suffer for their shortsightedness.

The sad part of this tale is that there are practical ways to go about reducing, and ultimately eliminating our need for fossil fuels. The problem is that it requires a sacrifice that I don't think our society is ready for yet, getting rid of automobiles for any type of long distance travel.

Combating crime almost always focuses on the enforcement side of law enforcement, and not on preventing crimes in the first place. I already mentioned the War on (Some) Drugs, however, that's only about half the problem, the other half is that what mostly fuels crime is lack of opportunity and poverty. You can combat both of those, with the side effect of reducing the crime rate, by doing things such as guaranteeing publicly funded college or trade school education. Increasing funding to give grants and loans to start or spread local businesses to poverty stricken areas. Providing free job training for welfare recipients, and also provide free or low cost day care for families with children.

The net effect of implementing such policies would be a reduction in crime, it would be phased in, but just having more cops on the street isn't enough, you must combat the problems at the source. This way you come out with solutions rather than soundbites.

[Adelante]

5. Agree

Especially: "Pragmatism is not a lack of idealism"

[cali]

7. then give it

an rec for that. I'm tired of seeing pragmatism derided as a sell out.

[Adelante]

12. Okay, did

Thanks for the reminder.

[polichick]

8. On the other hand, people want to be able to choose between...

...candidates who are significantly different from one another ~ otherwise it's too tempting to opt out.

[cali]

9. Yes, well

I've come to the conclusion that a fair amount of bias goes into deciding whether candidates are significantly different from one another. I guess it all comes down to what you see as significant.

[polichick]

11. Currently, it's too hard to tell Dems from Republicans...

Congress is proving time and time again that what we really have is Republicans and Republican Enablers. Obviously, that hasn't worked for the American people. Many people, especially the young, write off the whole system because they correctly understand that neither party represents them.

[cali]

14. sorry, I'm not big on the performance of Congress, but

I'm not big on vague generalizations either. And the reasons that any demographic doesn't vote in large numbers is actually a complex thing.

Sad that you think all dems are simply republican enablers. In that case, why bother?

[polichick]

17. Sad that you think it's acceptable for ANY Dems to act as...

Republican enablers ~ this Democratic Congress has been completely ineffective, and not because the American people didn't do their job last November.

Give the people a true blue Democratic candidate and maybe they'll start believing again.

[cali]

21. I didn't say that, and I'm sure you know that. How sad that you're

willing to twist my words. YOU are the one that made a sweeping generalization. It's a weak thing to do.

[polichick]

24. I think you should read my responses more carefully...

I said what I meant and meant what I said, and it wasn't about making generalizations.

I would only add that it's not smart to compromise to the point of losing the identity of the party, which amounts to compromising the party right out of existence, as we're in danger of doing.


(In any case, it's just an opinion ~ no reason to take it so personally.)

[riqster]

13. The only quibble I have is how we define 'practical'.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but think that we need to expand our range of possibilities in some cases. If we start by assuming that we can't get the whole loaf, we should shoot for half, not a crust.

[cali]

15. Sure, I didn't mean to suggest that we shouldn't strive

for as a big a chunk as we can get. And I see a lot of value in pushing for things we can't get right away. Keeps them on the horizon.

[riqster]

20. I just wanted to make it explicit. nt

[John Q. Citizen]

42. In politics, as in any negotiation, you always ask for more than you think you can get.

The Repos understand this and they always ask for everything. As a result, they get much more than they probably thought they would.

Look at our candidate's healthcare proposals. They are all (except for Kucinich) asking to use public tax dollars to subsidize private for profit health insurance companies. Almost the same as Romney's MA plan.

That's insane.

Why ask to do what a Repo opponent has already conceeded? Ask for more.

[Armstead]

16. It's really a matter of degree -- and pragmatism vs. inertia

The issue is not pragmatism vs. idealism.

That's a given.

The real question is the proportion of each, and what goals are worth the risk -- and how much risk.

If pragmatism means running around in a circle because one is afraid to see what happens if the course is changed even slightly, then that's inertia -- NOT pragmatism.

[cali]

22. You seem to have an unusual defiinition of pragamatism. n/t

[Armstead]

26. No I am looking for a real definition of pragmatism

We do have to accept incremental change. However, turning to the same people who got us into this mess is not pragmatic, if they want to repeat the same old formulas.

We are looking at many Democratic candidates who basically advocate more of the same and are supported by the same Elites who got us into this mess.

Allowing them to bludgeon us into rejecting positive change by falsely comparing inertia to pragmatism is the opposite of pragmatism.

[bettyellen]

55. you have a much better grasp on reality than the OP does....

that's exactly why they are losing their base. and many "pragmatic" people can't grasp that sad reality.

[ruggerson]

18. Agreed, but the far more important question isi

do you prefer a CANDIDATE who prefers realism to fantasy?

Kucinich, imho, is the ultimate fantasy candidate.

Clinton and Biden are probably the two "realist" candidates.

Kucinich fires up some of the base because he portrays every issue as black and white.

Clinton and Biden anger some of the base, because they see many issues as shades of gray, far too complex to break down into a simplistic "yes" or "no."

[riqster]

19. Behind the scenes, DK works to compromise

He knows you should always try for 100% first, and then see how nmuch you can actually get in negotiations. Clevelanders keep re-electing him for that reason. It behooves us all to research our candidates, rather than accepting the surface-level, cartoonish images served up by the MSM as reality.

[ruggerson]

25. It behooves many of us

to acknowledge that there are people in our midst who have the wherewithal to observe, analyze and make judgements on their own, without any influence from the MSM.

[John Q. Citizen]

46. One has to also question what our candidates actually want.? I think a lot

of people imagine that a candidate would actually do more, if they could, when there is no evidence for that.

Take healthcare for example. We know what Dennis wants.

But I have no idea what Hillary would do, if she had the power to do what she wanted to do. (this goes for the rest in the Dem field as well) I'm afraid what she would do is just what she has proposed.

So that's not a matter of pragmitism vis a vis healthcare, that's a matter of pragmitism vis a vis campaign dollars.

Romney has already put the Clinton plan into effect in MA, government subsidied for profit health insurance companies.

So I can only imagine that our candidates (with the exception of Kucinich) want the same program as Romney wants.

[Enrique]

27. watch Bernie Sanders explain this to an impeachment advocate

notice his eyes almost rolling a bit at the impeachment guy's rhetoric.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EejpCPMSXV8

[cali]

28. heh. I don't need to.

I hear him responding to Vermonters on a regular basis when he's on vpr's call in show.

[zalinda]

29. While your observations may have been true

before Bush, they haven't been true during the Bush administration. The country has been turned decidedly right, in just a few years. I'm sorry but I don't see Clinton as the savior, she alienates too many people. Obama, he's just not ready. He took advantage of his popularity from the dem convention and turned into a run for the White House. I think this is more of an exercise for him, and if he lucks into the Presidency, well great. He just needs a few more years of experience.

Edwards, Biden, Dodd would all make good Presidents, and who knows what will happen. While Kucinich is a love, he wouldn't get elected, too many hippie type ideas. I think even being a Vegan would work against him. Gravel, doesn't have a chance in hell, he seems more like comic relief.

And if you are looking for a pragmatist, that's me. I've looked at every angle of this election and I don't think Clinton can get elected. Too many people hate her, or her husband. Polls are wonderful things, they can say anything, if you ask the question in a certain way. There are only 3 candidates that will not keep this country divided and that is Biden, Edwards and Dodd. While I am an Edwards supporter, I would not have a problem with voting for Biden or Dodd.

zalinda

[cali]

31. A few points: Who said anything about Clinton being a savior?

How does that have any bearing on my OP? Her name isn't mentioned, and I'm not even a supporter. The OP isn't about Obama, or Clinton or any other candidate and I didn't write it with the presidential election in mind.

It's weird. You responded to an OP you seem to have superimposed over what I actually wrote.

Whatever floats your boat.

[zalinda]

32. Just a reminder

You wrote, "Candidates perceived as too far to the left or the right will not get elected. Not next year and probably, never."

I gave a synopsis of the candidates, from my viewpoint. I didn't call you out, but apparently you thought I did. Did I get too close to home?

zalinda

[cali]

36. another reminder: that was one point among several

and no candidates were named. It wasn't even particularly central to what I was trying to convey.

No, sweetie, I didn't think you were calling me out; I thought you addressed things in my OP that weren't there. Still do. And I haven't the vaguest idea what you mean by "did I get too close to home?"

[John Q. Citizen]

47. LBJ transformed people out of poverty in one term. He made a huge impact on

poverty rates. That has been slowly eroded, but not back to where it was prior to LBJ.

This idea that we must set the bar low is dangerous, IMHO.

[Jade Fox]

30. These are unique times.....

I don't really disagree with your general point, but starting with the organized effort to "get Clinton", and the current flowering of the 30 year Conservative effort to take back the country via slow buy-up of the media, think tanks, etc., we have entered a unique era in American politics.

I believe that the backlash against the Bush era can make this country more progressive than ever. It's clear this won't happen easily. While we are indeed a mix of beliefs, I think the majority of Americans, when not confused by false fears and mis-information, are closer to progressive than not. Unfortunately, most elected Democrats have either sold their souls to Corporations or have their ears tuned only to the "wisdom" of political consultants, and have failed to notice it's a whole new ball game now. We will need to kick and kick and kick the Dems into functioning, at the same time we need to support them unquestionably against the Republicans.

Poll info here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/03/AR2007110301306.html?nav=rss_politics

[Name removed]

35. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

37. Kicked and recommended. NT

[PurityOfEssence]

38. I agree, but it's all a question of where one draws the various lines

That's the problem. One person's pragmatism is another's enabling, and one person's incrementalism is another's stalling.

The only way to hash these things out is to hash these things out. Extremism is a form of black-and-white judgment, and that phenomena, in the end, is shorthand usually based on laziness or outright fear of thinking. It's an analog world and needs to be dealt with that way.

The underlying message here is that Senator Clinton's version of ultra-moderation is thus the wise way. With this, I completely disagree.

[cali]

40. true enough.

but you couldn't be more wrong about the OP being about Senator Clinton. That's just a bizarre projection. If moderation were her problem, instead of triangulation, I probably wouldn't have such a problem with her.

It's very strange that people who are Hillary-phobic (vs those of us who simply oppose her but don't have a strong animus toward her) are projecting wildly all over a piece that has zip to do with her.

[PurityOfEssence]

49. Guilty as charged

My presumptions often gallop ahead of me.

[cali]

52. We all do that at times. n/t

[MLFerrell]

39. "Bloody revolution is not the answer to the problems we face."

I disagree.

"When peaceful revolution becomes impossible, violent revolution becomes inevitable."

It is all too clear that peaceful revolution is, in fact, impossible.

What does that leave us with?

NOTE: I DO NOT ADVOCATE VIOLENCE. I also do not decry violence. Take that for what you will.

[cali]

41. OK, here's how I take it.

If you don't denounce or advocate violence, you're copping out. And I don't believe it, anyway. Not in the light of the comment in quotes and the the comment following.

At least have the courage to say what you really believe.

[MLFerrell]

43. Advocating violence is against DU rules.

That's all I have to say.

[Enrique]

44. if you're afraid to be banned from DU

then how do you expect us to follow you into real live armed revolution?

[cali]

45. LOL!

how true.

[MLFerrell]

48. A few questions:

A. Who said anything about me leading a revolution, violent or otherwise?

B. Did you fail to notice when I said "I DO NOT ADVOCATE VIOLENCE"?

C. Did you know that you come off as a raging asshole?

[cali]

51. I didn't say anything about you leading a revolution. I laughed

at a joke someone else made. Your denial of advocating violence, rings about as false as Cheney's claims that Iran is a threat.
Lastly, your opinion of me doesn't phase me in the least: temper, temper.

[MLFerrell]

53. I didn't reply to you.

I replied to Enrique.

You? I got no problem with you.

[cali]

54. Sorry about that. n/t

[MGKrebs]

50. Pragmatism is just idealism on a different time scale.

For many anyway. I'm sure some pragmatism is a lack of courage, or apathy, but not all of it.

[ulysses]

56. let me try again, since the subthread was deleted.

In your last response I can see (sorry, the boy made me take him for a walk on a glorious afternoon), you said, Working with political realities doesn't mean support actions I disagree with. Doesn't it at least mean temporary acceptance, though? Where's the line between acceptance and active dissent in the name of "fantasy"?

[cali]

57. No. It doesn't.

one actively dissents against reality. One works to change it, but what one shouldn't do, is pretend it doesn't exist.

[ulysses]

58. but what do you consider reality, and who do you think

is pretending that it doesn't exist?

[cali]

59. some political realities are listed in my OP

here are a couple of othere: Our form of Gov't lends itself to a two party system. I'm not saying you can't try and create a viable party, just that it's a lot more difficult than under a Parliamentary system.

It sucks that money plays such a big part in the electoral process and it has to be changed. Unfortunately, with the composition of the SC as it currently exists, that's not realistic.

Some things that people at DU commonly believe that is not rooted in reality:

That activists can have an impact on the leadership in the Congress. Fact is, the only avenue that approaches that is elections. All the screaming in the world isn't going to change that.

That Pat Leahy, Henry Waxman and John Conyers can simply issue contempt citations for those who have ignored Congressional Subpoenas. Nope, in the real world, it goes to a vote in the Senate and House.

That impeachment procedings will slow down bushco. Nope. I'm pro-imeachment but that's not going to stop bush from bombing Iran or god knows what else.

[ulysses]

60. but if only elections have an impact on congressional leadership,

then can you blame progressives for trying to build an alternative party?

[cali]

61. who said anything about blame?

I don't have a problem with anyone trying to build an alternative party, I'm just saying that the structure of our form of gov't makes it hard to do. I think the way to go is build an alternative at the state level and recognize that it won't happen over night.

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

62. War that simple...

Personally i hope Hillary gets nominated and defeated and after a 4 years additional repug rule the US goes the way of the soviet union and hopefully peacefully splits into smaller units. The worst outcome would be a competent corpocrat at the helm imo. No matter if a dem or repig.

The Dollar is sliding, at some point it will enter the hyperinflation phase. homelessness, unemployment and poverty will be some of the effects. At the end it doesn't matter who will be elected because the corporations own your house your salary your daytime etc... government is for plebejan control via hard methods by intel and security forces and for political and military opening markets where diplomacy or money fails.


By the time the pragmatic way wants to achieve some significant changes in say 2 to 3 generations most will be dumbed down as schools and media get worse and those who should continue the fight will be even more in the marginalized wing if not in hide. Mass control is on their side..the media, the police, the mercs, the cred companies, the corporations.

My thought is that things need to be crushed down and rebuilt perhaps as a decentralised federation with more emphasis on state level. But however armed rebellion will not be needed to achieve deconstruction of the current status.. economy and perhaps even ecology will do that by themselves. The question is what will arise from the proverbial ashes? Corpocracy, Theocracy, united STATES, UNITED states II, separated states, northamercian toxic wasteland? time will tell...

[cali]

64. well, the corporations don't own my house

and I live pretty out of the american mainstream. In fact, if all that your little crystal ball forecasts, comes to pass, I'm in pretty good shape- and that's by intent. How about you? If you believe all this will shortly come to pass, I'm sure you live a life style that can endure some really tough times, right?

I find your post horridly selfish. What your wishing for is a likely catastrophe, not just for this country, but for the world.

[MGKrebs]

68. I doubt it. The "system" is getting pretty good at identifying

the level of poverty and oppression the masses can tolerate without rebelling. We are basically living in a feudal system where a few control the wealth and the rest of us just hope for enough to not suffer too much. We are just arguing over which lord is going to be more benevolent. I am thinking that an all-out assault on this system (populist/progressive presidential electoral politics) is doomed to failure. If we want to change things, we need to employ asymmetric warfare. We need to win a lot a small battles (local races and "issue" legislation") and gradually build the movement until we reach the point that we've won before anybody even realizes that they've been challenged.

That is, unless a modern-day Joan of Arc appears.

[MGKrebs]

63. We need both.

The activist/idealists constantly test the water for what's possible. The pragmatists see that effort and take what they make available. There are certain times and circumstances when the activist/idealists will have great success, but some stars have to line up just right, and usually there has to be a charismatic leader and a bunch of people willing to sacrifice a LOT to make it happen.
Just my opinion.

[cali]

65. Well,

One can be pragmatic and an activist and do everything that the idealist does. I'm talking about fantasists, anyways, not idealists. Idealism and pragmatism are not opposing concepts.

[bettyellen]

66. weren't you arguing that fighting the good fight was a waste of time? no impact on congresss...

i believe i saw you post that upthread.
but now the pragmatists are going to do "everything the idealist does" .... somehow i don;t buy it.
you're certainly turning the meaning of idealist on it's head, in an attempt to co opt it.

[cali]

67. er, no. certainly not. and if you're going to make accusations

in the form of insinuations, may I suggest you try and back up said accusations? Quote where I argued that fighting the good fight was a waste of time. You won't be able to, even if you search the archives from now until election day, because I've NEVER written anything like that.

And you appear limited in your ability to understand anything but simplistic sloganeering. Complexity doesn't seem to be your thing.

[bettyellen]

69. you forgot POST 50 "Not rooted in reality: That activists can have an impact on the leadership"

not inisinuation- but a quote from you. Unless you claim that having "no impact" is sudeenly a worthwhile endenvour....
I understand plenty, despite your attempt to insinuate otherwise.
It's not that complex, It's not hard werk, either. ;)


"some things that people at DU commonly believe that is not rooted in reality:
That activists can have an impact on the leadership in the Congress. Fact is, the only avenue that approaches that is elections. All the screaming in the world isn't going to change that."

"All the screaming in the world" Oh really- so you think the pragmatics' are going to help with that... LOL...
Talk about a little limited. I haven;t heard such BS since Regan's thousand points of light! You are Hilarious.

[cali]

71. or for the sake of all that's honest

I said, absolutely accurately, that activists cannot have any impact on the Congressional leadership, beyond voting in reps and Senators who they trust to make sound decisions on such things. Why? If you don't know, return to basic civics. Leaders are chosen by their peers. And guess what, duckie? That means only their fellow Representatives and Senators. This is an inside deal. That's the reality.

Glad you think I'm hilarious. I think you're just not terribly swift, or informed, and not honest.

But have fun playing your sad little games. I'm fully aware of what this is all about. You aren't terribly subtle, either.



Edited to add evidence of your twisting what I said. Here's what you said,

"weren't you arguing that fighting the good fight was a waste of time? no impact on congresss...
i believe i saw you post that upthread.

that I KNOW that Congress picks its own leadership, and that YOU or others can't do it, is hardly arguing against fighting the good fight. Furthermore, chew this one over: Trying to recall Diane Feinstein for her vote on Mukasey is a waste of time.

You know that Serenity prayer? Hackneyed but true; you change what you have a chance to change, before riding off on pointless and stupid ventures.

[bettyellen]

74. fantasists believe that pragmatic people will do what activists do.

in other words, you're trippin, boo. talking out both sides of your mouth with that one..

:hi:
c ya!

[Bonobo]

70. Cali(fornia) Dreaming.

"We can reverse the dramatic changes that took place in the last 6 years by making tiny baby steps and walking on eggshells so as not to arouse the ire of the gentlemen and women on the other side of the aisle."

[cali]

72. lol

of course that's not what I said. but never mind. keep ranting about how: WE NEED NEW LEADERSHIP NOW- like that's within your ability to affect. Or how about a stupid effort to recall Diane Feinstein when the Constitution trumps state law, and even if it didn't there's a frackin repub governor.

It's idiotic shit like that, that I'm talking about.

[penguin7]

73. You only have one vote

If you do not vote for what you want, you vote means not much.

[DeepModem Mom]

75. A courageous post, cali! nt

[Perry Logan]

76. Realistically, the Republicans are screwed.

[bread_and_roses]

77. How I love these little DU lectures; I read at least one a day!

I am especially fond of those that use the word "grown-up" to describe the writer's position, and those that remind us that "taking your toys and going home" is childish. But I must say, being reminded that "Mississipi is not Vermont" is worthy of a calandar page!

I think you should send this little homily to the monks in Burma - remind them how futile and unrealistic are their "idealistic" actions.

[cali]

78. of course, my OP had nothing to do with

a scenario like Burma. The Theravadan monks in that country are dealing with reality- one far more negative than what we're facing here.