When we belittle the significance of the other guy's issue...

[cthulu2016]

There are all sorts of issues that are not decisive in making a presidential general election vote. The simple fact of Supreme Court appointments, by itself, makes it almost impossible for a Democratic presidential candidate to not be worth voting for, no matter how defective a candidate might be in general.

When, however, someone criticizes a presidential candidate over a particular issue it is sometimes said that they need to shape up and fall line because their issue is politically inconvenient and not very important.

Well yeah... as covered in the first paragraph here, nobody's issue is very important. Even jobs and the economy isn't very important, if one insists on defining the word "important" to mean "a reason to vote for Mitt Romney."

But when one gets into the pragmatic "stakes are high, your issue isn't as important as the big political picture" mode he or she should recognize that had he or she been on DU 0.0 back in the 1950s they would have been saying exactly the same thing about civil rights, and women's rights. (And DU 0.0 would have permited it, too, as a very mainstream view within the party.)

They might claim they wouldn't, but that's ridiculous. They would have. Issues that we today take for granted as epic moral issues (women's rights, monority rights) used to occupy precisely the same political space as troublesome political issues of today (gay rights, war, drugs) and were thought of and discussed in PRECISELY THE SAME WAY.

It is fine to rail against the whiners who think their pet issue means something as long as one has the intellectual honesty to recognize that he or she, given his or her intellectual and emotional approach to politics and the world, would have once been among the same pragmatic bloc who said exactly the same thing civil rights or women's rights or decriminalization of sodomy or Vietnam or some other issue that was once inconvenient in the big political picture.

And that's a fact.

I am not saying that self-congratulatoryily ruthless pragmatism is necessarily wrong. I am merely saying that every belligerent pragmatist of today would have, in fact, been equally belligerent about things we have come to view as core moral principles and his words back in the day would be regarded, from today's perspective, as something shocking.

To think otherwise is to fool ones self.

[sabrina 1]

1. Good post. Those arguments, that 'now is not the time' to talk about important issues, never made

sense to me.

When is the time? Imo, election season is the very best time to talk about important issues, that is when those running for office need something from the people. That is the only time when they are likely to pay any attention to what the people are most interested in.

No one ever got their civil rights or anything else from elected officials, they got those rights by never giving up the fight until it became clear to those running for office that those issues needed to be addressed.

Imagine of MLK eg, had remained silent during election season. It is the worst strategy ever and I would love to know whose idea it was in the first place.

We can be sure that the lobbyists are working doubly hard during election season and of course their bosses would simply love it if the people took that advice and remained silent on such important issues as SS, Medicare, Gay Rights, Womens' Rights, the Minimum wage etc. So we are fighting lobbyists for the attention of those running for office, and they will never be silent.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. I vote issues. Not party or politician.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[Capt. Obvious]

3. Romney would be worse

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

[quinnox]

4. Its also a very arrogant and obnoxious thing

to act as if what another person considers important should not be a focus. My reaction is WTF, people everywhere have their own pet issues and passions, duh. No one has the right to tell another what they should focus on or what should be important to them. That is what I think anyway when I see someone do the behavior described in the OP.

[Bake]

5. Somehow, I have a hard time seeing legalizing MM or legalizing pot in general

as being on the same level as civil rights and the other issues you mentioned ...

Just sayin'. Reasonable minds may differ.

Bake

[Marrah_G]

7. I suppose it depends on where you are viewing the issue from

If you are a person with an illness who has a choice between suffering or risking jailtime, then maybe it would be alot more important to you.

We all view the world through our own experiences and those experiences shape how we think on issues.

[cthulu2016]

8. Yes.

And back in the day someone with that intellectual/ethical style would have been saying the same thing about contraception vis-a-vis big issues of the past like slavery... and so on.

Your argument is ne from personal incredulity. You have a hard time seeing it.

To be sanguine about imprisoning people for no threat to society requires a certain approach to ethics and morality. People whose lives are ruined by the government over something you have a hard time seeing as a big issue may not share your inability to see it as such.

I grew up with white liberals who hard a hard time seeing that integration of public accommodations was as important an issue as slavery.

And they were right! It was not as important as slavery.

But the observation is not morally dispositive of the issue.

[Bake]

13. I think the current attacks on contraception

and the gains made by women are a HUGE issue, on the other hand.

Integration was, and continues to be, the logical next step of abolition.

Bake

[Fumesucker]

10. And you would have said the same thing about civil rights vs fighting communism in the fifties..

[Bake]

14. Well, I was around in the 50s.

Although I was only a toddler. In the 60s and 70s I saw civil rights as the defining issue of our times. Again, MM is important, to be sure, but it is not the defining issue of our times.

Bake

[Fumesucker]

15. The drug war and the war on terror on the other hand are defining issues..

Defining issues are seldom recognized until well after they define an era..

MLK Jr was considered a rabble rouser and troublemaker by the Very Serious People of his time.

You see we now have a POTUS that is an admitted drug user, one who would have never become what he is had his policies today been fully implemented upon his own person when he was young.

[Vincardog]

18. Are you assuming that supporters of MM do not support civil rights? Binary

thinking is a symptom of limited intellect.

[Bake]

21. Did I SAY that? Did I?

Jumping to conclusions like that is also a sign of limited intellect.

Go smoke a doob. You'll feel better and might be less snarky.

Bake

[Vincardog]

25. Somehow it seemed implicit in the following:

Somehow, I have a hard time seeing legalizing MM or legalizing pot in general
as being on the same level as civil rights and the other issues you mentioned ...

The implication being that MM concerns exclude more worthy concerns.

[white_wolf]

22. Tell that to the thousands of people rotting away in our prisons system...

due to the drug wars. I'd say it's pretty important to them, their friends and family.

[Bake]

23. Of course it's important to them, and to all of society.

How about the MILLIONS of middle and lower class people who are going to lose what little they have if the Pukes are elected in the fall?

Do they matter to you?

Bake

[Marrah_G]

6. My favorite line is " I hope you like President Rmoney"...

...as a response to any criticism of the WH on any issue. I've given up getting pissed off and just put the people on ignore. They do absolutely nothing to further the President's campaign, in fact, they usually just piss people off.

[dana_b]

9. everybody's issues deserve attention

and not to be dismissed as unimportant or unworthy at this time. To be honest, I just ignore those who belittle others' issues.

And no - we don't want Romney but that doesn't mean that we should keep quiet until the election is over.

[gratuitous]

11. For myself, at the very least

I have resolved to try not to interfere with what someone else views as The Most Vital Issue Facing the Electorate in November. Unless, of course, they're trying to get me to agree with them.

[FSogol]

12. Everything boils down to the Supreme Court

Do you want Romney and his adviser Robert Bork making 2-3 selections in the next 4 years?
Or would you rather have Obama make the selections?

Everyone can decide what is important on their own.

[Bake]

16. There. You. Go.

BAM! Nailed it.

Bake

[cthulu2016]

26. What on earth does that have to do with the topic?

"Do you want Romney and his adviser Robert Bork making 2-3 selections in the next 4 years?"


You seem to be assuming that voicing one's own opinion about, for instance, drug legalization, makes it likely to get Romney elected.

Is there some evidence of that? If I am critical of administration drug policy on DU does that mean Romney will be the next president?


Do you recognize that the assholes who spend time on DU attacking people for their pitiful discontent are far more likely to get Romney elected than the discontent itself?

Do you realize that attacking the most disaffected portion of the potentially pro-Obama electorate is the most destructive thing an Obama supporter can possibly do?

It is.

Do you have any historical instances where telling people to shut the fuck up about their whiny ass problems has resulted in votes?

It is not helpful to Obama. It is just some mean-spirited people abusing others because they enjoy being abusive, and then wrapping themselves in the flag or party purity to defend gross behavior.

[FSogol]

27. Whatever. Whatever the complaint, I'm sure Robert Bork will be on your side.

BTW, Where did I attack you or tell you to shut up? You can't find an example because I have never attacked you or told you to shut up in any way. So keep puffing yourself up with righteous indignation because someone had the audacity to disagree with your "deep thoughts."

[xchrom]

17. You know what I've learned from personal experience?

Gay people can and will survive any thing thrown at us.

You want to ignore us?
Fine - do so.

You want to say I have to put up with anti-LGBTIQ bullshit from the 'party' least damaging to me?

Fine. You run with that.


You want to say it's all about The Supremes?
Great.

You can say all of that - but brother if you don't seriously have my back - I'm not excited about voting to get yours.

I'll survive - my people will survive and continue to fight on fronts that matter.

But ignore me & mine or tell me & mine our shit don't matter?

I wish you Good Luck - maybe see ya in the future.

[cthulu2016]

19. Knowing that neither party really cares about your defining issues

is somewhat liberating. I don't know when I gave up on the idea of non-belief as ever playing a part in American public life, but it was no later than high school.

Irronically, the Democratic Party probably gets a much higher share of the atheist vote, and the gay vote, and the hippie vote than it does the votes of retirees or union workers or any group whose interests the party is actually keen to address.

[xchrom]

20. It is ironic. But all these different groups need to migrate

To where Dr King was.

Economic justice under pins everything.

Off topic - but it's what jumped out at me w/ what you wrote.

[cthulu2016]

24. Freedom without money...

...is a very limited sort of freedom