Wonderful piece from Gary Hart.

[wisteria]

There is something called the national interest. It is not an ideology. It is not the possession of a single cabal of self-appointed imperialists. It is not achieved by substituting consensus for principle. It is not "bipartisanship" for its own sake or in pursuit of bad policy.







"Together, the two new/old parties must recapture a sense of the national interest, above partisan victory and advantage, willing to achieve consensus for the good of the country as men and women of good will and leadership define it, operating in good faith and mutual respect, and most of all bound by constitutional guarantees and constraints.

I choose to be a Democrat. But I am able to do so because I am first an American."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/the-national-interest-and_b_78987.html">link

It is well worth reading!

[YvonneCa]

1. Thank you...

...for the link, wisteria. It is a simple, but great message from Gary Hart. (I sent it to everyone I know). I also recommend his book, "The Fourth Power", in which he lays out a grand strategy (founded on the best values we have as Americans) for our country as we move into the 21st century.

I also choose to be a Democrat....because I am first an American. :)

[wisteria]

2. Thanks for spreading this around. n/t

[Luftmensch067]

3. Perfectly expressed

I also sent it to a bunch of friends and family. Good thoughts to start the new year with.

Thanks for posting!!!

[Inuca]

5. On the other hand

I read through some of the comments at HuffPo. MOst of them range from dismissive to downright hostile. Which says a lot about the current sad state of affairs. There is so much accumulated frustration on "our" side, that it degenerates into almost blind wide-ranging hate. I understand and share the frustration, I cannot condone the irrationality of the hate.

[Luftmensch067]

6. Thanks for the warning! LOL!

I think I'll just go ahead and skip the comments! I completely agree with you how sad and non-productive that rage and hate is. My hope is that the message of hope and activism that people like JK and Gary Hart are offering will continue to break through that resistant hostility, a little at a time, until we really start to see a change in attitude.

[Inuca]

4. It is an uplifting read

I posted it earlier today in GD, but of course everybody is too crazed with all the primary insanity, so nobody noticed. I think we even quoted the same passages :-). I am really curious what is Hart's involvement with the crowd that is going to meet in OK next week. From the little that I know, most of them are of the kind that would "substitute consensus for principle". But then there is Hagel, who does not, and of course Bloomberg who is one HUGE question mark in my book.

By the way, here is another somewhat similar post on HuffPo that I also found interesting http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/enough-of-soft-fuzzy-bi_b_78915.html Enough of Soft & Fuzzy Bipartisanship: America Needs a Dissident Ticket. Rambling, but some interesting ideas and analysis.

But the organizers of this meeting are deluding themselves if they think that getting Republicans and Democrats behind a non-specific agenda is the real challenge for the nation -- or is even worth all of this effort. Unprincipled, unfocused bipartisanship is bland, stale politics. And as Matt Stoller notes, bipartisanship too frequently is called on to anoint bad decisions to give both sides freedom from accountability.

I don't want more bipartisanship for its own sake. I want dissident Republicans and dissident Democrats to make this government work in the way it is supposed to work -- and to deliver on the policies that the public expects.

[wisteria]

7. I really like that last quote.

Just take a look at some of our great leaders and how they managed to manage and get things done in a divided nation. Lincoln for example.

[Inuca]

11. Dissidents can come in many forms and shapes

and dissentcan sprout from many directions. Clemons (the author of the article I liked to) is a big Hagel fan. Kerry's actions also qualify him as a dissident, and I am not referring to the past, nor only to his positions against the current administration. The main problem unfortunately is that the current climate seems to squelch voices of true, meaningful and thoughtful dissent, and often turn them into barely relevant (at least in the short term, or at least I hope so) "voices in the desert". And I am not referring only to the political climate, but to the whole social, cultural, AND political climate that we seem to have created around us, that encourages superficiality, short attention spans, etc., etc.

[beachmom]

8. Excellent article. Thanks for posting, Wisteria.

My favorite part about it is the history:

The age of Roosevelt was replaced by the age of Reagan which itself is coming to an end. The age of Reagan was relieved only briefly by a rare period of peace and prosperity in the 1990s. The brief Clinton era pursued "centrism" at the cost of blurring the fundamental principles of the 20th century Democratic party -- a sense of national community (Roosevelt), citizen duty (Kennedy), and equality and justice for all (Johnson). Return to the age of Reagan, under the current administration, destroyed the security alliances established by Truman.

There will, presumably, always be a conservative party. But it must be retaken by pro-environment, anti-interventionist, fiscally responsible traditional Republicans. For its part, the Democratic Party must redefine itself for an American generation that does not know what it stands for or what its principles are.

Since my general political bearing is being an Independent, I can't tell you how dispiriting it is to be stuck with only one party to vote for. I mean, what do you do when the Democrat is corrupt, there is no primary opponent, and the Republican is a rabid right winger? It would be nice if Republicans went back to what they used to be, which was far more moderate, and really was about putting the brakes on. Conservative, cautious, with restraint, and so on. That sure as hell doesn't describe the GOP today. They're anything but those things.

Then Hart gives a word of caution:

The national interest cannot be achieved by settling old scores, vengeance for past wrongs, and demonization of those with whom we disagree. History operates its own court of justice and vengeance is the enemy of progress.

Vengeance, btw, is not to be confused with justice, if crimes were committed.

Also a footnote: Did everyone see that a link to this forum shows up on HuffPo? I guess they now are showing who links to their articles.

[wisteria]

9. I also liked the parts that you highlighted.

The ideals of both parties seem so screwed up anymore. What do they both really stand for anymore? Do they even know? Money and power are good when they are used to change things for the good of the people. I don't see much of that change anymore.

[Inuca]

10. Vengeance vs. justice

That's exactly the point that seems to be missed by many of the posters at HuffPo that are criticizing Hart for wanting to "make nice". It's the meanness, the vitriol, the "us vs. them" mentality that I find destructive and purpose-defeating. Hart puts it perfectly in the passage you quoted "demonization of those with whom we disagree".