dagblog - Comments for "Of Democrats and Dissent"

Thanks for the kind words,

DF — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:55:35 +0000

In reply to Thank you so much, DF, for

Thanks for the kind words, LisB. I'm glad to see you here and hope you stick around.

Thank you so much, DF, for

LisB — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 05:15:17 +0000

In reply to Of Democrats and Dissent

Thank you so much, DF, for this.

I was going to leave this brief, but it may get long, and for that I apologize.

First, may I admit that it was your avatar that got me to move from TPM Election Central over to TPM Cafe in the first place. One of my first Cafe posts that gained popularity, i.e., "recs", was my post, "I Have a Crush on DF". It wasn't just your gorgeous avatar (which, unfortunately, I learned isn't really a picture of you, but the guy that co-starred in an Arnold Schwarzzeneger film, alas), but your reasonable approach to....well, just about everything. Back then it was oil, mostly. You covered our dependency on oil more thoroughly than any other online blog I could find. Your knowledge of history, that too. Most important, your way with words. Your blogs spoke to us in ways even I could understand.

Okay, so I formed a crush on you until I learned that you didn't come complete with the hat and beard. And then Dag came along and 'whoosh' you left Cafe. Except every now and then.

I've never forgotten your well-reasoned approach to things and I wish to hell I could emulate it but I am far too hot-headed and or milque-toasted to do so (hence, my apparent reputation for being passive aggressive....which I may be, or I may not be, depending upon my mood).

This post tonight makes me remember all the things that made me join TPM. The sense of reason, the long discourse, the involved discussions back and forth.

And it makes me realize how grateful I am for having let go of the brain-washed feeling I had all throughout my late teens and into my 20's and early 30's, when I simply voted Republican because that's what my family did. It makes me realize how grateful I am for discovering that I have a soul, and heart, and mind, and I can put the three together and use them in tandem to discern whether or not things are fair and balanced, or altogether fucked up and wrong.

I have a long way to go but I know my heart is in the right place, and I know that most of this country is the same. Waking up the 'sheeple' is going to take time, and firing up the ones who are a million steps ahead of me is near impossible when they already know and see what is needed while I'm slowly catching up to their vision....but keeping communication open and being patient -- as you are doing -- is a huge major step. And for that I thank you wholeheartedly.

We all have the same goals in mind, it's just that we're all taking different routes to get there. Some of us are getting stuck on the way, and some who are already there are, perhaps, getting bogged down in the quagmire in an effort to help lead people before they are ready.

The fact that a door is open, and has been opened since January 2009, may be lost upon both those stuck in the reality, and those stuck in the hope.

But the door is open.

Great piece, DF. I've

Michael Wolraich — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 04:33:49 +0000

In reply to Of Democrats and Dissent

Great piece, DF. I've commented on this before, but the Drayden position squares with my research on the right wing. The Republicans were full of moderate pragmatists for decades and remained the whole time at the minority party. In the 1970s, disgruntled conservatives began to challenge the party elite in ways that are much more aggressive than what liberals agitators have been doing. Their efforts to purge liberal Republicans gave two Senate seats and a few House seats to Democrats. But soon after, the newly conservative GOP began to make dramatic gains and eventually took over the government for the first time in 50 years. Far from hurting the party, the agitation was extremely effective.

Thank you, Dreamer. I hope

we are stardust — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 04:09:00 +0000

In reply to Thanks for the link--I took a

Thank you, Dreamer. I hope I'm just resting in order to marshall my energies. Every car on the freight train of disasters bearing down on us deserve diaries; shorter: so many issues, so little time and energy.

Ennui and excuses are cowardly at this point, IMO, and it will take some incredible critical mass of Americans knowing what is crucial for our survival and for justice of all kinds, and acting toward regaining what we've lost, and then moving even further forward.

I think the times call for both thinking and feeling people of goodwill to come together in common cause.

Very solid post, DF. And I

acanuck — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 04:03:30 +0000

In reply to This is just a step beyond,

Very solid post, DF. And I say that even before following your links. But I was struck by destor's ad-hoc list of " what most people, including establishment Democrats, are going to believe." I reread it a few times, and have to say it's a pretty accurate description of precisely what I do not believe. Just by chance, you'd expect one or two things I'd agree with, but no. Nada. Maybe it's just me.

I feel like the discussion

DF — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 02:46:47 +0000

In reply to This is just a step beyond,

I feel like the discussion about motives was very much alive on oleeb's recent thread. That's not exactly the discussion I was trying to provoke here, but I do think it's a significant factor. I addressed it only tangentially in trying to talk about how we both have to create space (ie earn market share in the bazaar of ideas) and push pols into that space, but I think that strongly implies that they are quite realistically not there because they don't want to be.

That's part of the fury that is directed at Obama personally - the notion that he should be a leader in a movement or movements for pursuing certain principles. In reality, he's an elected official that, despite tremendous power, still has to work within certain parameters.

And I think that fury can go in fruitless directions. One of the ways where I think it goes sour is when people push for third parties, despite all of the evidence that they aren't and won't be viable. We either have to 1.) work within the system we have or 2.) change the structure of the system itself. If people really think that more political parties is the solution, the system has to be changed in order accomodate that.

Similarly, as much as I support pushing the Democratic party to the left from within, even by primarying bad actors wherever possible, I also recognize that there are other structural issues that poison the whole process. Campaign finance is incredibly worrisome in terms of any promise of real democratic power. I think that the main goal of democracy can be summed up by the phrase "diffusion of power." The campaign finance system exemplifies the opposite of this, allowing for the concentration of power into the hands of small groups or individuals. The corporate form, as we've discussed, has problems along these lines.

So, yes, I would agree that we have a long way to go. And, unfortunately, it would seem that we spend perhaps too much time in pitched battles that get us nowhere because the real business here is winning the war of ideas.

This is just a step beyond,

Michael Maiello — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 02:15:29 +0000

In reply to Of Democrats and Dissent

This is just a step beyond, DF. And I know what you mean by dumb -- it has nothing to do with dumb people and everything to do with how an argument we've been having has dumbed down the whole discussion. I mean, on one hand I'd like to believe that the other side thinks Salon and FDL are costing them the elections. That would make the other side so wrong that I wouldn't even have to worry about taking them seriously.

The fact is, the other side isn't dumb and they did a ton to get Obama to the White House against all odds, really. So, not dumb. Rather accomplished. So what do they mean? I think they mean, when they complain about pretty small outlets like FDL or Salon just what they used to mean when they complained about The Nation and Mother Jones back in the day -- they mean to remind some very passionate people that they are outside of the mainstream.

Good ideas are always going to come from outside the mainstream. Some very bad ones, too, but let's stipulate among friends that most of our ideas, while radical by current standards, are pretty darned good. There are two reasons general reasons to oppose them:

1) Fear of risking what we have. In this instance the other side likes our ideas, wants to remind us about the art of the possible and, to be fair, would not like to see all of its hard work and passion flushed down the toilet because some of us what Noam Chomsky for Secretary of State. I kid, but not really. If you credit the other side with a lot of work, passion and intelligence then you have to believe that they would like to defend their own advances too. This is the tactical disagreement. We share goals but differ about how to reach them. I think it tells part of the story but only a small part of it.

2) Legitimate disagreements about our goals. If you're outside the mainstream it's because the majority of people in society don't agree with you. Whether or not you can win them over depends on a lot of variables but the fact is, you haven't won them over yet. So if you put aside for the moment issues of corruption (remember when we used to call Biden "D - Bank of America?") you just get down to what most people, including establishment Democrats, are going to believe. This includes things like:

God, in one form or another, possibly with warm fuzzy feelings about the U.S.

American exceptionalism in foreign policy, to varying degrees.

Free market capitalism, to one degree or another.

Security over liberty with regards to anti-terrorism issues.

That consensual crimes including innocent pot smoking should remain illegal.

That Social Security and Medicare represent crisis-level budgetary issues.

That for the most part, American society functions well, though it needs to be tweaked.

I'm just riffing above. It's incomplete and some of it is no doubt wrong. But it all kind of describes the system as it stands now and so to me, it's not that far fetched to imagine that if that's how the system is now, it's because to some extent most people like the system as it is now. They don't think it needs to be radically overhauled. Is that because they're deluded? It might be. It might also be that they're perfectly happy. As a great man once said, that's why they make ice cream in chocolate and vanilla -- because you like crappy flavors. What I don't believe is that there's a magical inner Obama who, say, would really like to let the ACLU sue the government over its rendition program but just can't.

I guess that means the left has to realize what it's up against. The opposition is not secretly on our side. Not most of the time. They mostly disagree with us and it's not so much about how to get there as it is about where we're headed. The good news there is that we can have our argument about ideas rather than tactics. The bad news is it means we have a lot further to go than we maybe thought.

Thanks for the link--I took a

AmericanDreamer — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 01:54:59 +0000

In reply to May I please recommend your

Thanks for the link--I took a brief look at the link and am going to look into it more. The last thing I want to aid and abet in any way is abandonment of the struggle, what Tomasky calls "ennui". I think DF's post is intelligent and accurate in allowing for the important role of different kinds of advocacy. Have you posted under a different handle at the cafe or elsewhere? I hope the exhaustion is not on account of serious health issues but is more a (hopefully) transient situation.

May I please recommend your

we are stardust — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 01:09:24 +0000

In reply to Valiant attempt to push this

May I please recommend your comment, AD (nice to see you again), and recommend your post, DF (nice to read you again), and add an action, possibly (please!) a Game Changer:

http://www.onenationworkingtogether.org/main.aspx

Sorry; I'm out of words lately, and I thank you all who can continue the struggle. I'm in another, more exhausted, place, no matter which website I read and/or comment within.

Valiant attempt to push this

AmericanDreamer — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:51:00 +0000

In reply to Of Democrats and Dissent

Valiant attempt to push this discussion a bit beyond the tired cliches, DF.

One subtextual conclusion one might draw, maybe what Tomasky would conclude, is that progressives need to develop fortitude. Look at the history. It's practically never been the case that a major advance in social policy happened on the first try. Keep at it. We didn't get good things done in this country because the people who cared gave up easily and threw in the towel.

Another conclusion might be drawn in response to the FDR/Townsend example. FDR was able to get a lot done--despite the defection and opposition of the influential Townsend. One might wonder: how was that? Well, I think one has to look at how FDR was able to win over most of the public, including a sizable share of the populist anger and sentiment, to support him and his program in a way Obama has not.

My frustration is not that the measures adopted have seemed generally weak and inadequate. That would have been predictable by those familiar generally with the history which the authors of the articles you link to cite.

Rather, it is that this President has not used his bully pulpit to develop the strong relationship with the public which was by far his best weapon to beat back attempts to gut the legislation he was proposing. Why no Fireside Chats a la FDR? Has the President lost confidence in his ability to explain specific problems in language ordinary people can understand, what he wants to do about them, and why, in a way that is persuasive to the majority of the American public? Hell, FDR did this within 10 days of being sworn on the banking situation. It was extremely reassuring to the broad public that was suffering so much, on several levels.

Fast forward to the present. It feels as though "we" have gone in battle having decided in advance not to use our most effective weapon--the power of a popular President to frame debate.

It has happened often enough as to raise doubts among many progressive Dems as to whether this President is, among other issues: a) more of a progressive or an overly timorous triangulator; b) a fighter for those progressive causes which majorities of the public, not just professional disgruntlelists, say they support; c) a competent communicator with the public, which is a shocking concern to many following the campaign and his perceived talent as an orator; and d) someone who really has bought into the worldview some of his top advisors seem to have of progressive activists/the party's base as having fringe views and aspirations for the country.

If you feel someone has your interests and concerns in his heart and in his gut, is fighting as hard and as well as he can, and has had to compromise more than you would like to have seen him compromise, it's a hell of a lot easier to accept that than if you're left scratching your head on those kinds of questions. Especially if there is no particular reason to believe that any of that will change going forward.

Anyway, good post, DF.