Democrats shouldn't begin our advocacy in the middle, where our concerns are ultimately compromised

[bigtree]

The republican opposition begins their advocacy from a craven position of obstruction of any impulse or instigation of government that is outside of their sponsored militarization, or outside of their support and elevation of the business interests which bankroll and encourage them into power.

The middle is the republicans' political playground. They aren't at all sincere about their responsibility to the public interest. Basic concerns like health care, education, civil rights, the environment, are treated with miserly neglect as they, reflexively and unflinchingly advocate and vote for more money for more tax breaks for the wealthy, more money for their foreign occupations, more for conflict, and more for the feathering of the military industry coffers.

Our party, on the other hand, purports to be concerned with actually using government effectively to address average Americans' basic needs and concerns. As the nation's citizens go, so do the rest of the interests and concerns which make our great nation grow and develop. As we develop our positions and arguments we have to acknowledge the origins of issues, where inclusiveness is a prerequisite to success, and partitioning of concerns is nothing but marginalization and abandonment.

Our leaders can not expect us to advocate from the middle. That's where we are ultimately, but not inevitably, compromised in our concerns. No one in a position to effect change should be sanguine about partial remedies that only manage to address part of a problem. Compromise should be an acknowledgment of work yet to be done; progress, but not a measure of ultimate defeat for the needs and concerns of those who get left out of the final equation.

The liberal left or progressive contingent in our party advocates with the acknowledgment that comprehensive approaches are integral to bringing a majority of members of our Democratic constituency to a remedy together, leaving no individuals behind.

For the committed left, centrist, incremental remedies represent a bargaining off of one segment or another of the body of concerns of those they advocate on behalf of. It seems absurd for them to offer up a slice of a whole loaf as a guiding ambition, especially since the opposition doesn't give a wit about the unlucky ones whose benefits are whittled away at the margins just so someone can claim moderation; as if half-assed was a virtue.

Our environment won't be well served by bending to unaccountable industries that compromise on clean air regulations, trading emission output in the shell game Congress allows. It won't be addressed by centrist, state's rights arguments that obstruct state to state environmental protections for wildlife and clean water.

Health care won't be adequately addressed without relying on the left's insistence that we provide universal health care. There wouldn't be incremental measures considered or adopted without the solid, inclusive position the left advocates.

Centrist heartburn about protecting business, advocating voluntary standards as opposed to enforceable legislation, leaves us vulnerable to uncontrollable price increases, barriers to eligibility and access, abandonment of workers right to fair wages and compensation.

How do you fight gerrymandering, or defend the Voting Rights Act without including the left's concerns about proportional representation that they use in their arguments about affirmative action? How do you get fair labor standards to make the centrist's 'free trade' work without fighting and defending the increase in the minimum wage the left advocates?

How do you end wars and occupations of opportunity by advocating just a little less imperialism?

The universality of the left's approach not only continues to recognize the individuals who are left out of political compromises, but actually strengthens the position of our party's own centrists who face a unified wall of obstinacy, opposition, and obstruction from their republican opponents.

As voters consider going to the polls in this increasingly anxious period in our nation, facing opportunistic occupations and imperialism abroad, they will be looking for someone who actually intends to do something about their own concerns. Our party has to be recognized as a vehicle for activism and advocacy whose representatives in Congress won't pull up short just to reach out to the 'do nothings' across the aisle.

Our rights, our liberties, our needs and concerns will not be protected or furthered by the expedience that comes with an established moderation. The center is where 'piecemeal' solutions means someone's going to be left behind. It may be the ultimate destination of our advocacy and debate, but moderation should not take precedence over the solid, inclusive, advocacy that our committed liberal, progressive left defends for the advancement of all of us, not just the compromised interests of a selected few who meet in the middle.