I Am a Proud Party Purist

[Truth2Tell]

I am a Democratic Party Purist.

This means that I choose which politicians I support and which I do not based upon their values and their political agenda. When candidates or office holders work toward and believe in the same things I do, I support them. When they work against the values I believe in and support positions opposite of my own, I oppose them. I do this regardless of the political party to which they claim to belong.

A few confused provocateurs on DU choose to compare me and those like me to Nazis, Stalinists or worse. Evidently these folks would prefer that, like them, I support anyone capable of penciling in the letter "D" next to their name and close my eyes to what they believe or what their political agenda might be. Sorry. Not me.

It's unfortunate that this needs to be explained, but here goes: The difference between my insistence on a "purity" of values and that of the Nazis, Communists, Stalinists or Fascists is... wait for it... I'm not a Nazi, Communist, Stalinist or Fascist. I'm an anti-war libertarian-leaning leftist Democrat. As such, believe it or not, I prefer that politicians I support share my anti-war libertarian-leaning leftist Democratic views - at least to a certain extent. I want my fellow Democrats, if they are to garner my support, to share my Democratic values. Imagine that.

Just because some Nazis also wanted their fellow Nazis to share their Nazi views doesn't make ME a Nazi. I hope that makes sense to the confused Nazi-labeling-disruptor crowd.

Anyone who claims to have no "litmus test" for whom they would welcome to our Democratic Party should ask themselves if they would welcome racists or anti-gay bigots. Or self-proclaimed fascists. Or NAMBLA members. Fill in the blank with whatever objectionable belief you can think of. If you have no litmus tests and would welcome them all then I pity you.

Personally I have plenty of litmus tests and am quite fine with that. Such is the only way to conduct politics of any substantive meaning. No racists supported here. No war-mongers. No Corporatists. And more.

I hope this helps clear things up. :P

[slackmaster]

1. Thank you for putting some thought into your political decisions

Party affiliation means little to me.

[Fumesucker]

2. K&R.. Thanks.. I didn't feel like typing that much n/t

[Lint Head]

3. I have voted for a long time and my philosophy is this.

I vote for the man or woman and if the man or woman is a republican I do not vote for them.
:dem:

[MannyGoldstein]

4. K&R. Word! n/t

[mike_c]

5. kicking and recommending...!

:thumbsup:

[rcrush]

6. K&R 100%

Thank you sir. I agree with everything you said.

[TwilightZone]

7. "Party Purist" is an oxymoron.

Particularly as applied to the Democratic Party.

[Fire1]

19. I would suspect that's why there is no such thing.

[Bjorn Against]

8. Actually it sounds to me that you are most certainly not a party purist

Think about what the words "party purist" really mean, not what the conventional wisdom says they mean but what their literal meaning is. It is clear that they suggest purity not to your values but instead to the party. For some reason however it seems that everyone wants to insist that the "party purists" are the ones who will speak out when members of their own party are doing the wrong thing. In reality however the party purists are the ones who will support anyone who has a D by their name solely because they have a D by their name. You are not a party purist you are only being pure to your own values.

[Truth2Tell]

11. Quite true. I am a purist by the definition of my critics, not

by the actual definition. I am actually a proud ideological purist and they are Party purists. Yet they incessantly use the term "purist" as a snide pejorative and I just wanted to diffuse that a bit.

[Bjorn Against]

13. I personally don't believe in ideological purity...

I don't think it is possible to be ideologically pure, and I certainly don't think there is any progressive manifesto that lays out the ideologically pure positions because if there were progressives would constantly argue over it as not all progressives view everything the same way.

I think what you are talking about is not actual ideological purity, but rather holding politicians to a certain standard. My guess is that you are not looking for absolute purity with your positions on every issue, I doubt you are going to look at every item in a spending bill for example and demand that a politician holds your exact position on whether they support or oppose your position on each of those items. That would be ideological purity, but my guess is that you are not a purist because your litmus tests only cover certain issues that are of high importance to you. There is nothing wrong with basing your support for a politician on issues that you believe are very important and staying true to your values does not make you an ideological purist.

[Truth2Tell]

18. Fair enough. I don't require 100% purity. But I do require SOME

standard of purity.

[Bjorn Against]

21. We should all require some standards of purity, if we didn't we would be drinking sludge

[readmoreoften]

12. +1

Excellent point.

[TwilightZone]

16. Agreed.

Quite the opposite, it would seem.

[Odin2005]

9. I belong to no organized party, I am a Democrat.

So there! :P

[msongs]

10. an opportunist who wants to hold on to power at any cost. that's not pure at all n

[Forkboy]

14. People calling others purists are usually projecting.

If we were all really purists why is it that the so-called "far left" always compromises in every election by voting for a centrist? Obama was a compromise for me. Kerry was a compromise for me. Gore was a compromise for me. Clinton was a compromise for me. You get the drift. :)

And for the record, I like all those I listed, but they were still a compromise compared to what I would prefer to see.

[bertman]

35. I'm with you, Forkboy!

[tnlefty]

15. Well you Stalinist, Nazi, Commie-lovin' son of a gun.

:hi: :beer:

Posts that set up with a polarizing premise, followed by name calling really make civil discourse difficult and keep shit stirred up. I read through part of that one and started laughing and moved on. Not enough popcorn in the world to even think about trying to read through that thread.

Another litmus tester here.

[stillcool]

17. I am so fortunate to have people..

representing me who rarely if ever vote against what I would wish. I guess that might make it easier for me to not be a purist, a perfectionist, or a person who is unyielding on any number of issues. Or, perhaps it is because I am far less than a perfect human being. I strive for progress, not perfection. A very unpopular view.

[Atticus]

20. Thank you for making room for those of us who can't swallow the Yellow Dog approach.

I couldn't contribute to the DNC this last cycle as I did not want to subsidize the thinking that took impeachment "off the table", approved the continuation of Bush's domestic spying and rewrote the bankruptcy laws for corporate America. I contributed directly to candidates and worked my ass off for Barack Obama. I am a Liberal. I support Liberals and, occasionally, those who may be useful to Liberals.

If you are anti-choice, racist, anti-gay, anti-labor, pro-war or believe we should let the corporations completely run the country, putting a "D" after your name will not make you "acceptable". I may occasionally hold my nose to vote, but I will not cut it off to spite my face.

Yeah, I know, I'm a newbie. But, the post is honest and sincere.

[bvar22]

22. Well said.

K&R

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans,
family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[dflprincess]

26. As I've said a couple times in the last few days, I really, really hate

Democrats and especially DFLers (like Amy Klobuchar) who never hesitate to invoke Wellstone's name, but never stand up for what Wellstone represented.

The DSCC would never let someone like Paul get elected now.

(and check out my sig line)

[MisterP]

23. even worse, I AM Marxist--so Mona Charen Dems' redbaiting doesn't work

Thing is, in Academia, being a Marxist is no more remarkable than being, say, a "Darwinist" or a "Freudian." That's why Horowitz hates it so much: students and professors *shudder* STUDY things!

[ZombieHorde]

24. "compare me and those like me to Nazis, Stalinists or worse"

What is worse than a Nazi?

[dem629]

25. So basically you're making an argument that it's fine if a person

doesn't agree 100% with other Democrats.

What's the argument here?

Oh, that it's fine as long as they agree with YOUR litmus tests.

[Truth2Tell]

28. Of course. We all need to use our OWN litmus tests.

Nothing wrong with that.

[Individualist]

27. K&R

[alarimer]

29. I became an independent when it became clear we have two corporate parties.

Neither one is for me, anymore. I don't care at all about Specter, political hack opportunist that he is. He became a Democrat (again) only for power and influence but does not believe in most of the platform. So to hell with him.

All this does is ensure that a primary challenge in PA (which I will certainly give money to, although I almost never donate to political campaigns). The Democrats had a chance to pick up this seat, if Toomey was the Republican.

And it is clear to me, that the DSCC and Democratic Party of PA, by their pledges to not support a primary challenge to him, have kicked the voters in the teeth once again. Another reason why I am not a Democrat. The party apparatus is as bad as the Republicans.

[omega minimo]

30. Thom Hartmann says Libertarians are Republicans who want to smoke pot.

"I prefer that politicians I support share my anti-war libertarian-leaning leftist Democratic views"

Party Purity?

[Truth2Tell]

31. I acknowledge that "Party purity" is not

an accurate description of what I'm talking about.

Libertarian, ie: drug legalization, broad interpretation of 1st Amendment, full sexual freedom, etc. Social libertarian. It's quite possible to be a socialist and a libertarian. Not contradictory.

[autorank]

32. I fully endorse your position. Big k*r

Disregard those vile accusations. They are only comment on those who make the charge.

[MessiahRp]

33. Thank you...

All of this fawning over Specter who is going to be just as bad as of an obstructionist as Bayh and his gang of traitors was making me sick.

Leopards don't change their spots and 70 year old Republican Senators don't either.

Rp

[Sebastian Doyle]

34. Thank you!

All this "big tent" bullshit seems to be coming from only one side, and it's the far right side of the tent.

Would those who are so enthusiastic about drafting the likes of Arlen "Magic Bullshit" Specter and Olympia Snowe into the Democratic party extend the same warm welcome to Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney, if she decided to reclaim her congressional seat. Somehow I doubt it.

And I'm sure the DLC squad will pounce on this post with all their justifications for their lopsided "big tent".

[droidamus2]

36. Have to admit

I have to admit that I have been a straight Democratic party ticket voter since at least 1980. Prior to that I was more likely to take into consideration what the person stood for instead of what their party was. I even, to my eternal chagrin, voted for Nixon. An example is that our local congressman had been in office for years and brought a lot of money into our local area I continued to vote for him even though he was a Republican because his seniority effectively gave our local area more power in DC. I went straight party when the Republicans started emphasizing that if you were a true Republican you would vote for anybody with a R next to their name.