Is anyone else sick to death of the "Liberal Smugness" snarl that's going around lately?

[HughBeaumont]

Let me get this straight:

Democrats thought that a turn to the left was bad news in 2000, so Al Gore moved away from the positives of the Clinton Administration and brought on as his VP the Worst Democrat Next To Zell Miller, Big Insurance-backed Holy Joe Lieberturd. It's a given that, between Republican Lite and Republican, the latter wins that battle every time.

And, of absolute course, when The Failure Fuhrer became president, a handful of progressives were blamed for voting Nader (never mind the roles Jeb Bush, Kathy Harris, Karl Rove, Sandra Day O'Connor, Fox News, Jack Welch and Joe Lieberman himself played in that defeat).

"Grow a spine", they said. "Stop kowtowing to centrists", they said. "Stop bringing knives to gunfights when taking on the right", they said.

Oh, but now it's "don't be TOO mean . . . because nobody likes "SMUG".

So what's the message here, "be dishonest"? "Be nice to grown adults who refute science to believe stories and narratives from Reaganite Australians and purchased pundits?" "Stop being mean to people who make the demonization of nations, races and genders a way of life?"

Here's the thing: I will let up on the gas sometime when the Earth crashes into the Sun. In case you need that translated, I'm NEVER going to stop calling out Conservatives on their sexism, racism, anti-science, proven disaster economics, red-baiting, logical fallacies or their wholesale need to never compromise.

These people are grown adults. I don't have time to recalibrate the fuckered parts of their head, I have my own problems to deal with.

If they want to believe bullshit fairy tales like trickle-up socialism will lead to the benefactors and handlers being more benevolent or an invisible sky daddy will make their lives better while blowin' up the Mooslims and Commies, that's on them, not me.

If they want to believe they're better than someone because they're white, fuck them.

They need to wake up, grow up and OWN up. Don't sit there and call me "SMUG" to compensate for the fact that you think President Donald Trump is an awesome idea. Don't tell me how to conduct myself in political debate while engaging with people who think the loudest shouter wins. These people believe "the Reagan Legend" will solve everything and a 7-2 Roman Catholic Supreme Court will put them "wimmins libbers in thur place", but I'M the "bad guy" here?

[LonePirate]

1. Party purity is destroying the Republicans but some want liberal purity for the Democrats

I'm not sure those wanting purity on the left have carefully examined opinion and its consequences.

[Orrex]

2. And there are different standards of purity

For instance:

"You're not a real Democrat unless you vote for my candidate."

versus

"If you don't vote for the Democratic nominee, you're helping to elect Trump."


One of those is commonly mocked as a "purity test," while the other is somehow perceived as a principled stance.

[HughBeaumont]

6. I can really tell purity is destroying the Republicans . . . .

. . . with the way they (up until Scalia's inconvenient death) control 2/3 of the branches, including the House AND the Senate, the media, corporations, religion, economics, state governorships, congressional districts etc. etc. etc. Oh, and their reality-TV, CEO carnival barker, openly racist and sexist candidate is a serious contender for President.

Yep, I'm expectin' Americans to start hating Republicans AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANY minute now . . . .

[zeemike]

30. Is that because of the success of Republicans?

Or the failure of Democrats?
Perhaps instead of seeing and calling out the evil in others some self examination is required.

But as sure as you will always be hating Republicans you can count on them always hating you and Democrats...hate begets hate...and the circle continues.

[HughBeaumont]

33. Why are WE expected to play by a set of unspoken rules . . .

. . . when we battle people who would never play by ANY rules in a thousand years?

Where has "being the better person" gotten us? We have a mainstreamed Republican-lite message while tripping over ourselves to squash a much-needed progressive one. What has "going along to get along" yielded us? We've lost both the House and the Senate. We're in serious danger of losing the Supreme Court to the Roman Catholic Church for the next 30 years. We've lost governorships. We've lost state legislatures. We lost the Universal Health Care battle for likely our lifetime.

We have failed, yet we're not exactly making any effort to right the ship by ignoring progressive voices.

[zeemike]

36. So you realize it is OUR failure...that is the first step.

And there is a difference between being submissive and assertive. No one holds it against you if you are assertive.,,assertive is seen as strength.

But hating on your opponent shows weakness whether you know it or not.

The best example of how it works is the civil rights movement of the 60s. Never once did they display hate for the segregationist who were openly displaying their hate for them...and yet they were assertive and did not compromise on principles.
They won because public opinion turned against the ones displaying hate. If they had returned that hate that would not have happened.

We have forgotten the lessons of the past.

[HughBeaumont]

39. "hating on your opponent shows weakness whether you know it or not"

Republican victories by the truckload say otherwise.

America still buying the Reagan Legend en masse, Americans STILL fighting the Cold War, Americans STILL clinging to the demonization of the poor, of races, of religions, of genders, of the LGBTQI community . . .

Again. WHY are Republicans NOT BOUND by the same set of rules WE are bound by?

Hatred is literally a cottage industry for Republicans. And it works for them. I want that explained to me. WHY is it allowed to work for THEM, but we're supposed to reach for the higher ground?

[zeemike]

40. It works for them because we are not assertive

And hate them back.
The explanation is in human nature and psychology. Gandhi understood it and so did MLK and used that understanding to win.

Republicans pull our chain and we react...and as long as we do they will keep pulling it because our reaction justifies theirs.

[HughBeaumont]

41. Gandhi and MLK both got assassinated for their efforts. And we're not winning.

We can be assertive and then they'll pull the "Persecution Complex" card. Because it's what they do . . . play stupid until we give up.

[zeemike]

43. Well if you are afraid of being assertive step aside

And let those who are not lead.

But you confuse being assertive with imposing your will on people...that is not what it is.
When you impose your will you may be persecuting people.

[HughBeaumont]

52. This is just giving me a headache.

You know what "Assertion" is to conservatives?

"All Democrats are Communists."

This isn't just some whackjob on a Yahoo message board talking. This is a CNBC Pundit. It's a Fox News carnival barker. It's a crying clown who has his own channel. Their "assertions" are accepted as fact, and since no one fires back at them because we're expected to "play nice", we have Donald Trump: Presidential Candidate.

Here's my assertion . . . which really isn't an "assertion" so much as it is a FACT:

"The minimum wage needs to be raised to at least $11 an hour to merely correct for inflation."

. . . and note, it's not being said with any kind of meanness or smugness or any other such shit. It's a plain-and-simple FACT.

YET . . . how much support would the "communist" crap get versus the amount of venom my statement would get?

THAT'S the difference.

[zeemike]

64. And we respond with...

Republicans are racist, homophobic, misogynist...and around we go, both sides feeling justified in their anger.
It does not work, has not worked and will not work in the future.

But keep doing it and see.

[SusanLarson]

74. Republican Lite

When Democrats play Republican Lite they lose 100% of the time. Why because when given a choice between Republicans, and "Democrats" with Republican like policies such as espoused by Mrs Clinton, they will choose republican every single time.

[ReRe]

85. If I'm not mistaken...

... (and I often am these days) Harry Shipp Truman said something very similar. And it's the truth. I've watched it happen over and over throughout my long life.

[He loved Big Brother]

110. No "Shipp", but yeah.

(The S was his middle name, not Shipp.)

[ReRe]

111. Wrong...

... I do allot of genealogy and he is in my tree somewhere. I've seen it spelled with one "p" and two, but two more often.

[He loved Big Brother]

112. Incorrect about the name, not the spelling.

Shipp was the middle name of some men in his family. But the S in his name is his full middle name. It may informally mean Shipp, but Shipp is not his middle name.

But I'll just go know what's true, and you can do the same.

[ReRe]

113. I'll take your word for it...

... but I still like to call him Harry Shipp Truman.

[quakerboy]

9. Yeah, it is pretty discouraging

How many Clinton supporters are willing to purge the party(and this website) to get rid of anyone who doesn't show the proper enthusiasm for their chosen candidate. I wish they would think of the consequences

[Spitfire of ATJ]

16. How many of THEM are going to stay home if she is not the nominee?

[quakerboy]

69. How many of them have been encouraged to do so

and told that they dont matter, aren't wanted by the party or the nominee?

There are two sides. Both want their candidate to win. Both sides have said some nasty things. But as far as I can tell it is only one side who is actively trying to purge the other from the party.

If people are told to stay home and not vote, that their votes are neither wanted or needed, and then they do it, who is to blame?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

71. Kissinger.

[Hiraeth]

76. *snort*

and chuckle. really did make me LOL

[Bangbangdem]

80. Ha!

[A Simple Game]

96. And they could call themselves by an exotic cat name?

If Hillary supporters don't want to lead by example, then maybe they shouldn't set examples to be followed.

If as suggested the opposition should drop out for the good of the party, then perhaps 8 years ago the example should have been set for that too. Then again you never know, someone could be shot or something... maybe even go to jail?

[SusanLarson]

114. saw a poll today

67% which since Bernie has just under 10,000,000 voters means roughly 6.7 million democrat voters plus all of the independents and millennials who will not support her either.

[LonePirate]

35. Not nearly as many as Sanders supporters who want to purge the party/this site if he wins.

Who is responsible for all of the posts about leaving the party or starting a new one? It certainly is not Hillary's supporters.

[quakerboy]

68. Lol

Im sure you can find one to prove your point.

I see a lot of posts on this website advocating to purge Bernie supporters. I have as yet to see any advocating to purge Hillary supporters. There's certainly well earned animosity, and there's a general distrust of your candidate. But as far as I can tell only one side is actively trying to kick the other out of the party.

[LonePirate]

70. She's not my candidate. I did not vote for her. I'm simply stating facts with no candidate bias.

The number of DU posts claiming Hillary and her supporters are not true Democrats or are not progressives is simply staggering. There have been far fewer similar antagonistic posts aimed at Sanders supporters, presumably because Hillary's supporters actually support a big tent Democratic Party whereas Sanders' supporters are far more likely to be purists.

[Bangbangdem]

81. Man

My experience has been different than yours, then.

[Promethean]

84. If Bush bribers...errr I mean donors are part of that tent

then I don't want to be in it. Corruption is both stinky and sticky. The only appropriate response is to get your distance and throw disinfectant napalm.

[War Pigs]

92. not electing trump is all that matters

Remind those 95,000 Nader voters in Florida how that worked out for us. It's called the 2003 Iraq war

[quakerboy]

106. No, the survival of the country and the world are what matters

This is not a football game. This is real life and this election matters.

[quakerboy]

105. I think you are making things up

I sincerely doubt there are fewer. I think the argument that Hillary is not a progressive is fairly well based in fact. Theres no doubt there is disagreement on direction between the left and the center. Thats a policy discussion that we have and should continue to have despite the fact it will get heated and some here on both sides will say things that they should not.

But what I have seen is a lot of posts demanding Sanders supporters leave. I havn't seen a single one asking Hillary supporters to leave, or telling them their votes are not wanted come the GE.

[Andy823]

75. Got some links to back that up?

The only ones on DU that people want "purged" are the trolls who keep stirring up things and trying to divide the board by playing one camp against the other, and yes they are on both sides.

[JDPriestly]

11. Maybe it's not about purity but rather about strength of conviction.

Compromise is necessary, but to compromise well, to get the best compromise, you need to be sure of where you stand in the first place.

Clinton never seems sure of where she stands. She uses a lot of vague language so that she doesn't have to take a steady stand.

Bernie tells you right where he stands, what he wants to do and how he wants to do it. We know where he stands; we know the place where he will start to negotiate; we know what line he will not cross in compromise and what line he will cross.

In short, Clinton -- Hillary -- cannot be trusted to compromise with strength and conviction.

Bernie can.

That's why we like Bernie best. Or at least one of the reasons.w

Bernie is strong. It has nothing to do with being a man or a woman.

It has to do with character.

It has to do with the fact that Bernie clearly demonstrates that he knows who he is, and Hillary does not.

[LonePirate]

34. Character is merely the excuse given to dislike Hillary, especially when she agrees with Bernie.

Sorry, but it boils down to purity and not character.

[JDPriestly]

48. No. It's about character.

Have you read Bernie's book, Outsider in the White House? I strongly recommend it. You really get to understand what great character Bernie has.

[beachbumbob]

31. The far left element want a purity test too, we see it every day and sanders

Has never been known to compromise from his socialist agenda...we see his supporters echo the same sentiment. We are a big tent party and even unde the most extreme democratic conservative policies we are still a 1000x better than where the GOP has gone..I will never agree with a extreme left purity test...that is NOT America...nor ever will be..

[greiner3]

46. "...socialistic agenda..."

Hell, that's a slogan of McCarthyism. WTF???

[GulfCoast66]

77. McCarthyism... Or reality

I am a Democratic Socialist and would love to have a Swedish or German type system here. But I am mature enough, and associate with enough diverse people to realize most Americans reject that label. Just because you and your buddies are all in for socialism does not mean Bernie will win. The Republicans are praying he wins the nomination. They will eat him alive. Keep in mind FDR our most socialist president rejected the label. And he was a good enough politician to win four elections. And in the 1930s America was way more open to socialism than it is now.

I grew up in Arkansas in the 70s and 80s and I saw how Hillary Clinton was attacked starting in around 1976. She was always the more liberal of that couple.

She went all in, with no compromises for a healthcare system in the early 90s that we would love to have today. And it was defeated by a Democratic Congress. And you wonder what has made her pragmatic.

All this bullshit about the Hillery being a sellout are a Republican light and that only Bernie deserves the domination will lead to another McGovern style defeat. And if you think Nixon was bad, wait to you see President Trump.l

[stevenleser]

62. And on top of that, they're wrong. Every accusation they make is refuted by evidence. nt

[Triana]

97. low post count and parrotting RW talking points and phrases ie: "socialist agenda"

WOW.

This is a huge RED FLAG for me.

There are Republican messageboards. You might be better off on one of them.

[Scootaloo]

53. I'm not sure you actually have any idea of what you're talking about

You seem to be running off that college freshman wisdom of "man, like, you know, left and right are, like you know, totally the same thing!"

The trick is that the Republican party was already a strongly right-wing reactionary party before its "purity" movement got going. That is to say that its "conservative purity" was already well-established by the late 70's - there were no more Eisenhowers, and certainly no Roosevelts or Lincolns in the party after Nixon. So rather than a "quest for purity" that movement has become a Lord of the Flies-esque spiral into extremism.

Democrats, on the other hand, are not a terribly liberal group. The party itself is center-right, favoring some civil liberties, carefully-controlled, along with a neoliberal approach to economics and aggressive, interventionist foreign policy. A surprising large number of the party's electorate seems to beleive "Not Republican" and "liberal" are exactly the same thing. Our politicians regularly enshrine bipartisanship as a holy grail - bipartisanship, remember, with a political party that dropped a boulder on Piggy and is trying to set Ralph on fire.

Just by having these two very different starting points, a "purity movement" in one party will get extremely different rtesults than one in the other party. The Republican movement is a pull towards extremism, while the Democratic one is a pull away from the extremism if the Republicans.

[LonePirate]

56. The only people who think the party is drifting right are those on the extreme left.

Those same people are incapable of distinguishing between Hillary and Joe Manchin - or they simply refuse to distinguish them. The purists on the left and the right only want people who agree with them on everything. Neither group wants a big tent party. In that regard they are both the same hence the shouting that Hillary is not progressive by those on the far left.

[Scootaloo]

58. Or people who understand the political spectrum

Or people who are observant. Or people in countries with actual liberal or left-wing political parties. Hate to tell you but yes the Democratic party is a center-right political party. Has been for a good long while now. In fact aside from a liberal centrist burp in the 30's and 40's, the Democratic party has ALWAYS been pretty firmly right-of-center, since the days of Jackson (especially in the days of Jackson, actually.)

And yes, the party is drifting rightward. Our "leaders" buy into the myth of the middle, or the "goldilocks fallacy." This fallacy is that whatever option is equidistant between two possibilities must be the correct one. So while the Republican party is constantly pulling to the right, the Democratic party is constantly pulling to the middle point between Democrats and Republicans... which results in steady rightward drift.

I understand that this can be an alarming concept. But it's the reality of the situation in the United States. We have one center-right political party, and another party that is busting its ass to be straight-up fascist.

And apparently we have Democrats like you who are steadfastly, angrily opposed to any movement to make the party more liberal, to pull it more towards the left. I think that says a lot, honestly.

[LonePirate]

65. Nonsense. Give the Dems control of Congress and the Presidency and see how leftward the party moves.

There will be a slew of long overdue leftward legislation enacted when Dems regain control of both houses in Congress and the White House. This country will be almost unrecognizable in a good way if Dems controlled everything for six years like W enjoyed. But the far left's insistence on purity interprets even small gains via compromise as a rightward shift, even though they somehow ignore how rapidly right we would be moving were it not for our supposedly right of center (according to them) President.

[Scootaloo]

100. The trick is, Democrats keep running to the right, and losing their election bids

There's no reason in the world to beleive that people who run campaigns centering around how they can be like Republicans is going ot lead to a fresh new era of leftward policies. Right now we actually have a candidate who is on hte left wing of our party... and hte party is doing everything htey can to sink him, and instead favoring a candidate who is to the right of Obama.

You are falling into the trap of thinking that Democrat = Liberal. And you bolster it with an ill-educated sneer that any right-wing problems in the party are paradoxically caused by the left. Because we aren't real big on compromising with the right. Really? Compromising with the people who think accosting people for a genital check before they can pee is what's going to bring us progressive policies? Good lord.

[ReRe]

86. Question:

Do you have any idea who in the Democratic Party fostered that term, "Big Tent?"

[MrMickeysMom]

88. Agreed...

I'm not sure what was being said here, either, but you called the history up pretty well, I'd say.

The reason Democrats are not a terribly liberal group has gotten a pass a number of times by using the excuse (I've used this, too, admitting it) "we're herded cats"... When, in fact, our focus has been affected by the other party. Thanks, Bill Clinton for getting this momentum going.

[Albertoo]

79. ideological 'purity' is most often a dangerous concept

[FLPanhandle]

3. Al Gore was republican lite?

Gore vs. Bush were night and day to most people (except that idiot Ralph Nader)

[HughBeaumont]

4. He sure campaigned as one.

Denying that is folly. The guy was still praising NAFTA and ran on an interventionist/globalization platform as a centrist - distancing himself from the positives of the Clinton years and bringing on Holy Joe. He didn't often campaign with Clinton, and that also cost him votes. The guy made a lot of terrible moves in his campaign.

Later on, no. He realized the error of his ways, got out of politics and started caring about the environment.

[stevenleser]

5. Just knowing that this is what some folks called him shows where those folks are at.

Al Gore was never Republican lite and anyone trying to make that case is nincompoop.

[HughBeaumont]

7. Yes, insults will surely make your case stronger.

Tell me, do left-leaning politicians want anything to do with public-option-denying, Big Insurance-fattened, religious-Right-friendly Republicans like Joementum?

[mountain grammy]

10. One word. Lieberman!

[G_j]

14. Lieberman??!

[JDPriestly]

49. Democrats who are only interested in the social issues like Gore and Hillary.

Democrats who care about the social issues but also about the economic issues, the traditional Democratic Party's economic issues, unions, economic opportunity, fairness in the workplace, no to monopolies and trade organizations that stifle ingenuity and creativity, opposing the profiting from the pain and suffering of others and all the other economic issues that FDR Democrats care about are Bernie supporters.

Let's return to the Democratic values of the New Deal.

The Clintons have made the Democratic Party a haven for right-wingers who only care about the social issues but not about the economic ones.

[stevenleser]

51. It just gets more hilarious. Here was Gore's 2000 plan for Prosperity for America’s Families

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Al_Gore_Budget_+_Economy.htm

Lays out 10 goals in Prosperity for America’s Families plan

Gore’s 191-page “Prosperity for America’s Families” plan lays out ten ambitious goals within a balanced budget. Their goals include:
Make America Debt Free by 2012.
Protect Social Security and Medicare Surpluses via a “lockbox.”
Double the Number of Families with Savings in Excess of $50,000 via new, 401(k)-style, Retirement Savings Plus accounts.
Reduce Income Taxes on the Typical Family to the Lowest Level in 50 Years with $480 billion in targeted tax cuts.
Raise Family Incomes by One Third over the Next Decade
Enable 7 in 10 Families to Own a Home -- a new record
Lift College Attendance and Graduation Rates to New Records via tuition tax credits
Reduce Poverty to Below 10% for the First Time Ever by raising the minimum wage and other reforms.
Cut the Gap Between What Men and Women Earn by 50% Over the Next Decade
Create 10 Million New High Tech, High Skill Jobs

[JDPriestly]

54. Nothing about the cost of college or healthcare.

Tuition tax credits assume that those who take them have income.

That is not always the case when you are in school.

It's not a progressive platform by today's standards.

Let's take these two items at random from your list:

Cut the Gap Between What Men and Women Earn by 50% Over the Next Decade

We need to cut the gap entirely. It's not enough to cut it by 50%. It isn't now. It wasn't then.

Create 10 Million New High Tech, High Skill Jobs

It doesn't do Americans any good to create 10 million new high tech, high skill jobs if they are created in S. Korea or China or filled with people on H1-B visas. Unless you change our trade policy, creating new high tech, high skill jobs will not help Americans.

That's why I am for Bernie.

He has the intelligence to understand what really needs to be done.

Much of Gore's platform is in today's world merely a list of slogans that do not relate to the reality that we Americans are living in.

[stevenleser]

59. You think so because you refuse to research. Its in the full 192 page plan I talked about

http://www.laputan.org/pub/books/gore_prosperity.pdf

Tons of references and concrete proposals to do lots about both the cost of college and healthcare.

This entire meme you guys are trying to sell about Gore is wrong to the point of being laughable.

[JDPriestly]

12. Gore favored privatization at a time when we had already privatized enough.

The massive for-profitization of health insurance was a huge mistake.

When I was growing up, a lot, maybe even all, of the health insurance was non-profit.

We should not have allowed it to change.

[WhiteTara]

101. Nixon changed it.

But we got shown the light about how terrible Gore would be. We got *co.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

15. When Clinton picked Gore for VP the base howled about him being too conservative....

Clinton actually argued that he needed Gore to "balance the ticket" because he (Clinton) was too liberal to get elected.

[Scootaloo]

55. You're speaking through hindsight.

Gore ran to the right of Clinton. He did so very poorly because Clinton is actually to the right of Gore. But "for the party" gore leaped away from Clinton, tried to paint himself up like Bush, took a nutjob right-wing running mate, and basically did everything he could to play "hey look I can Republican too!"

Now we could talk about WHY he did this - a combination of Clinton's scandals, and the inherent difficulty of getting a third term with one party seem likely - but the fact is that he did.

The meme that Gore and Bush were the same originates from the way Gore ran his campaign. All the way down to the contested results, where Gore couldn't seem to decide if he wanted to win or not.

I think that maybe instead of just dismissing Gore's loss as "BECAUSE LIBERALS" as you and so many others do, you might want to examine hte flaws and failings of Gore's campaign. Learn from it.

[Blue_Tires]

8. brilliant...!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

13. Why is it so inconceivable to admit Reagan was a disaster and to reverse his crap?

That's part of the appeal of Bernie is he sounds like a typical pre-Reagan guy.

Hell, there were REPUBLICANS who supported some of his proposals back then.

[just4lulzidk]

20. yep, and that buying into the saint reagan myth is what's wrong with so many dems

i remember back in 2008 when both obama and hillary made sure to name-drop reagan when they were talking about presidents they admired

and i still cringe even now when i think about hillary's nancy-aids comments...

cuz we all know that reagan worshipers would ever vote for an evil "librul"

[HughBeaumont]

22. Well, because that'd be admitting error.

A cardinal SIN in the World of Rove.

Yes, instead, let's name buildings and airports after Mr. High Treason, Mr. Supply Side.

Bernie's harkening back to what the USA SHOULD have done, and that's adopt FDR's Second Bill Of Rights as gospel . . . buuuuuuuuuuut everyone read Assless Farted and found the new Bible. The End.

[just4lulzidk]

17. liberal smugness exists in the same way that the liberal media exists (hint: it's nonexistent)

right-wingers of course made up the notion of the "liberal media" as a petard that they could use any time news media criticized them. "welp that newspaper over there just printed overwhelming and undeniable facts about how absolutely horrible all of our policies are, but that doesn't matter because that newspaper is just part of the liberal media, which means their facts don't get to hold up to our lies!"

which is strikingly similar to their "government is bad" argument which simply gives them an out every time they screw things up royally. "hey rick snyder and republicans didn't personally poison residents of their state. government and the epa poisoned those people! never mind that while those people were being poisoned, rick snyder and the republicans ran the government and don't even think that the epa should exist..."

and thus, they also made up the idea of "liberal smugness" to preempt any sort of left-wing pride over being correct about absolutely everything. "gee once again the democrats had to be elected into office to fix everything that the previous republican administration screwed up royally, but that's certainly no reason to go off and feel smug being proven correct for the jillionth time"

and so democrats are shamed into crawling back into their little holes and never tooting their own horn

meanwhile, right-wingers scream and yell as loud as they possibly can that "the sky is green and the grass is blue and that's my opinion and the first amendment entitles me to it, and if you don't like it then the second amendment entitles me to force you to agree with my opinion, no matter how wrong it's proven to be time and time and time again 'cause i gots my freedumb"

...

wow. this post ended up being a lot longer than i had initially planned

i hate it when that happens

stupid republicans...

[HughBeaumont]

29. There's no debating a person who's abandoned reason.

That's how they win . . . because they don't compromise and they don't think in an arena that demands both.

While we feel this need to abide by some arbitrary set of "rules" that result in "being the better person", they're winning elections.

Welcome to DU!

[just4lulzidk]

32. bingo

one of my personal favs is when conservatives whine about "fake librul tolerance" and how "libruls are some of the least tolerant people around"

but when they say that, all they really mean is: "wahhh you libruls have to tolerate our conservative intolerance"

[Hortensis]

93. Good post, Just4lulzidk. Most of my adult life right-wing

mass manipulators succeeded in making people think of "liberal" as a dirty word. To this day most polls and studies of liberal attitudes are badly flawed because they depend on self-identified liberals, and so many still don't. As a result they also didn't invest money asking the right questions of a significantly larger population than they realized. I'm sure these are major reasons political experts were caught out totally unaware by Bernie's success.

Hugh, after all these decades the resurgence of charges of "smugness" meant as insult not only does not irritate me, it pleases me because it is true and sincere, though wholly unintended, affirmation of the resurgence of liberal power nationally and the fear that generates everywhere it should.

stupid republicans...

[Maedhros]

18. This goes hand-in-hand with the "lesser of two evils" strategy.

The Democratic Party wants to move to the Right - because they make money that way, both in their private financial lives and in terms of corporate political donations.

The problem they have is: "How do we move to the Right, but keep our base?"

The answer is three-fold

1. Chide the base for it's unreasonable "ultra-left" positions.
2. Build the Party brand along you're either with us or against us lines.
3. Focus all Party rhetoric on how crazy and frightening the Republicans are.

We've seen all of this played out over and over and over in the last dozen or so election cycles.

(Note that "develop sound policy" is not on the list).

[HughBeaumont]

26. This despite Bernie getting killer crowds everywhere.

Proving there IS a viable voice for progressive policy.

Guess we all ignored what Clinton used to say: When we all do well, we all do well.

You ask me, anyone suppressing/dissuading a progressive message is the frightening and scary one.

[Maedhros]

38. What it means is that the Democratic Party is obsolete from a progressive point of view.

It no longer serves as a force for positive change. The Democratic mantra has become we're going to allow the country to degrade more slowly than the Republicans.

What happened to let's make things BETTER?

[Trajan]

102. +1,000,000 ...

Well spoken ... Exactly ...

The 'Vision Thing' has been lost in the piles of corporate donations today's Democrats have to wade through .... They are focused on servicing their corporate lords whilst ignoring the huddled masses, yearning for a decent life for their children.

This party ... MY party ... Has definitely lost it's way ....

Where the fuck is the VISION of a positive future from these ... Democrats?

How are the Democrats inspiring new voters? ... Hillary telling them they are lazy and stupid?

This election has the potential of breaking down the old boundaries and realigning the body politic in ways that haven't been seen for many many decades ...

[Enthusiast]

87. Huge +1!

[spanone]

19. as absurd as 'liberal media'

[Wounded Bear]

21. Yeah, a lot of the conserves I know got positively smug about it...

[sofa king]

23. Damned right I'm smug.

I am smug because I still have my damned conscience. Conservatives can't spell it and confuse the word itself with self-awareness, which speaks volumes about their morality and ethics--also just ten-cent words to them.

My smugness comes straight from the land of "I f*^ing told you so," where the words are free until they bite you in your dumb conservative ass. Then they're priceless.

[ancianita]

24. Re the first reading: I was a grown-ass reading, thinking, liberal feminist woman of the 90’s.

Last edited Thu May 12, 2016, 08:22 AM - Edit history (1)

I saw the political and corporate Right start its rhetorical and economic class war in the 80’s against all things liberal, including the word itself, which took decades – as did the Reagan era’s policy and politics – to factually challenge and disprove.

The real “liberal agenda” since then has been to fight this revisionist history along with the on-the-ground consequences of Reagan rule. The best argument against Clinton’s liberalism comes in the well-documented seminal history of two-party betrayal in Michelle Alexander’s “The New Jim Crow.” Liberals of the 80’s and 90’s remain appalled at Clinton’s great betrayal of the Democratic Party theretofore run by what is now labeled the “FDR wing.”

The smug liberal described here is embodied in Bill Clinton, whose Republican-lite racist policies continued those of Reagan and Bush. “Smug” liberals, led by Clinton, were all like ‘what he said.’ As Thomas Frank quotes Clinton: "...What are these people going to do? They got nowhere else to go...” …this philosophy of governing, slamming the people who just got you elected...

It has taken progressives and their liberal allies a long time to unravel the history of this Big Con. But now that we have, we can smell these corporate opinion hit pieces as they creep out of the anti-democratic tool box of fuckery.

[CRH]

25. K&R, conservatives deserve no quarter, or respect. You're spot on. n/t

[tonyt53]

27. Sorta crazy-like rant, but I tend to agree with it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. Yeah, they're saying that pointing out Republicans are nominating a loony for president

makes liberals 'smug'. That saying this is the end result of decades of them pandering to religious fundamentalists, and using racist dog-whistles, which sadly gets them votes, is 'smug'.

The people using the 'smug' meme are basically telling liberals to shut up and ignore that we're better than the idiot Republican party that is tearing itself apart.

[hfojvt]

37. I've long been sick of the smugness itself

Although you mean it is an untrue meme or something. The myth of supposed liberal smugness.

Yet here you are seemingly defending your right to be smug and harsh to people who disagree with you.

I still think that is a losing strategy.

Also, you seem to hold to other myths.

1. That Gore ran away from the left in 2000. (So now Bill Clinton is a liberal? ) At least in his major prime time speech it seems to me he ran TO the left, not away from it. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/61


2. That is was not Nader's fault that Bush became President. That's apparently the lie that will never die. Fortunately I saved the ultimate (did somebody say something about smugness, where's that damned kettle?) rebuttal to that nonsense.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/118


"If they want to believe they're better than someone because they're white, fuck them."

Uh huh and that is the response you will get with a smug approach. They will say this about YOU.

"If they want to believe they're better than someone because they're liberal, fuck them."

[HughBeaumont]

44. IT IS UNTRUE. I reserve my right to be harsh to people WHO ARE WRONG.

In case you need that translated, I'm NEVER going to stop calling out Conservatives on their sexism, racism, anti-science, proven disaster economics, red-baiting, logical fallacies or their wholesale need to never compromise.

I dunno, you ever heard of a Conservative NOT guilty of one, two or ALL of those aspects in the 21st century? Their Economics: WRONG. Their foreign policy: WRONG and murderous. Their social acumen: WRONG, repressive and dominionist. Their Red-baiting and consistent logical fallacies in their arguments: PROVEN.

I can be as kind as humanly possible and they can be as vehement and repellent as humanly possible and it ain't going to make them any less incorrect. It's not going to make them any more correct when they peddle the same tired and proven-wrong canards time and time and time again as if they were the gospel.

And Goddamnit, if you hire Republicans like Joe Fuckbag Lieberman, you are not running as a liberal Democrat PERIOD. What are we, trying to revise history and go against what political analysts theorized?

There were a number of theories connected to Gore's loss. Gore, according to a 2002 NPR article, attributed it to "the economic downturn and stock market slide that began earlier that year."[46] His running mate, Joe Lieberman, criticized Gore for adopting a populist theme, stating that he had objected to Gore's "people vs. the powerful" message, as he believed that it was not the best strategy for a sitting Vice President (Lieberman also stated that he would still endorse Gore if he decided to run for the 2004 election).[47] Other critics attributed Gore's loss in part to Green Party candidate Ralph Nader who garnered 2.7% of the vote, enough of whose votes which they argued might have otherwise gone to Gore to swing the result.[48][49]

Another theory suggests that Al Gore attempted to run a populist campaign but failed to separate himself from the abuses of the Clinton presidency. The public was not able to forget the Campaign fund raising controversy at the Hsi Lai Temple 1996 United States campaign finance controversy. There is also a theory concerning Al Gore first campaign interviews on CNN.[50]

However, it has been acknowledged that Gore's decision to distance himself from Clinton-whose Gallup approval ratings were well above 50% throughout the year-[51] was a costly mistake for his campaign

[hfojvt]

47. you know I thought I was wrong once

but I was mistaken.

I was really just unoriginal.

It's not a crime to be wrong. It happens.

Being harsh to people who are wrong is simply NOT an effective way to convince people that they are wrong. If you are trying to change hearts and minds, trying to make the world a better place, then you are doing it WRONG.

You know what I think is wrong, even one of the worst kinds of wrong? Cruelty, that's what. And you just basically said "I reserve my right to be cruel to people who are wrong."

Well I suggest you start with the man in the mirror then.

As for revising history. Yes, you do seem to be doing that. Even the quote you use there. It makes MY argument. It says that Gore used a populist theme.

You also say that Clinton was popular. Well, that wasn't the question, was it? I said Clinton was NOT liberal. So Gore is not running away from liberalism by distancing himself from Clinton. Given the atmosphere of the press, Gore basically HAD to distance himself from Clinton in order to keep the press from beating him up. Of course, as it turned out, the press kept beating him up anyway.

Then again, so did Nader. And without Nader on the ballot, Gore wins New Hampshire and disaster is averted. Gore becomes President in 2001. To deny that is to revise history. Nader also almost cost Gore Iowa, and New Mexico and Oregon and Wisconsin and so on. Nader did everything he could to help Bush win, and he succeeded. Like most people though, he is still unable to admit he was wrong.

[HughBeaumont]

67. I see. So you're in the camp that thinks Nader had absolutely no RIGHT to run.

Effectively rendering this NOT a Democracy, but a two-party dominance that expects the voter's fealty rather than, you know, EARNING their vote.

Exactly how is it Ralph Nader's fault if Gore couldn't successfully convince those who voted for Ralph Nader that Al Gore was the better option other than "WELL GEEEZ, GEORGE DUBYA!!??!?!?"? Granted, the Bush-favoring press had a distinct hand in this, but to just expect someone to kowtow "because too much is at stake" . . . presumptuous.

I mean, let's completely discount the roles Kathy Harris, Jeb Bush, Fox News, Karl Rove, Jack Welch and Joe Lieberman had in making this close enough to steal.

[hfojvt]

83. I never said any such thing

What I said is

a) By running Ralph Nader helped to elect George W. Bush

b) he should have known that could happen, in fact he was asked "What if that happens?" and he said "I don't care."

Does that mean Ralph does not have a right to help elect George W. Bush?

Heck, no, he has just as much right to support Bush as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and any other American citizen. It's not about his rights. It is about his goals, about his intelligence.

And again, you keep obsessing about Florida as if that is Nader's get out of jail free card.

Since you did not bother to read my link, I will repeat its basic FACT here. IF Ralph Nader had not been on the ballot, THEN Gore would have won New Hampshire. With a win in New Hampshire, Gore wins the electoral college, any theft in Florida is completely irrelevant.

Again, let me repeat myself. Ralph Nader had every right to be on the ballot in New Hampshire. He had every right to spend much of his political speeches telling voters "Gore sucks, Gore sucks, Gore sucks, don't vote for Gore". It is just the fact that BY DOING SO, he basically put George W. Bush in the White House.

If I did something like that, I would be very remorseful.

As for what Gore could and could not do. Well, I have gotten more and more active since 2000, but 2000 was the start for me. I did every thing I could do to keep Bush out of the White House. I wrote letters to the editor and I made calls on election day. Not much, but I did everything I could do to help Gore win Iowa, and he did, by a very narrow margin. Maybe, my ego wants to believe, my LTTE made that tiny difference. So I did not expect Gore to win all by himself - I did what I could to help.

In much the same way, except in the opposite direction. Nader did what he could do, and it was much, much more than I could do, to help Bush win.

As the wrestler said in "The Breakfast Club" - "How do you apologize for something like that? There's just no way."

[CBHagman]

99. Beautifully put.

What's really hit home to me since 2000 is that strategy matters and it's unfair to let someone off the hook for pursuing a game plan that will achieve the opposite of what he/she declares is the objective.

Unfortunately, this election cycle we are seeing a number of progressive independents and Democrats clinging to self-righteousness while scorning long-term or even short-term planning.

[War Pigs]

94. statistics and probability

Zero statistics/polling pointing to Nader getting more than 1 or 2% of the Florida vote. Zero chance Gore invades Iraq and wastes our national blood and treasure. Zero

[Enthusiast]

89. Huge +1!

[gratuitous]

42. Oh you think you're smart because you know stuff and stuff?

And it turns out that you keep being right all the time when you warn against unprovoked invasions and occupations of other countries, and the inefficacy of torture, and the awfulness of Republican policies? Just because of that, you think you're such a smarty-pants, don't you? SMUG!!!1!Eleventy!!

There! Totally refuted and Republicans win again forever.

[HughBeaumont]

45. Heh heh heh . . .

I don't know whether I'm supposed to ask Santa for a steel spine or be a milquetoast doormat. Maybe someone needs to conservasplain it to me. SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT US TO BEEEE!!1!!!!!11!!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

50. is there anything you feel positively about?

[HughBeaumont]

57. I'll answer that on November 9th.

For now, no.

I'm extremely disappointed in this country.

I really thought as time went on, America would finally get in tune with the rest of the industrialized world and embrace a progressive outlook; an America that would finally set precedents in human, civil, labor and voting rights and reverse the mistakes of conservative policies.

It seems that the exact opposite is happening.

The House is in Conservative hands and it's going to take a massive deprogramming of suburban and rural voters for that to change.

The Senate is in play, but how optimistic am I that it's going to change hands this year?

We still have governors and representatives clinging to mythology-based problem solving on human rights.

The economy? What options do workers displaced by automation and offshoring have? Costly college? Lower-wage retail jobs? A Guaranteed Minimum Income that's never going to come to pass in Protestant Work Ethic-addled, "earn yer keep" America?

What exactly does everyone WANT me to do?

Be dishonest?

Shut the hell up until something positive happens?

Stop complaining? Let me tell you something, if no one complained in life, we'd be working 7 days a week, 16 hours a day for $2 a day next to amputee children in firetraps with no benefits . . . and we'd go home to shacks with no plumbing.

GIVE ME SOMETHING TO HOPE FOR.

[Rex]

61. I got nothing.

Feel the same way in a lot of those areas.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

66. I find a lot of these things disappointing as well

But not all of my emotions are externally controlled.

The political is just a part of life. If it's causing you to be so sad, maybe focus on something that gives you joy for a while.

[bullsnarfle]

107. That's one big reason we are in this stinking mess.

Too many people with their fingers stuck in their ears going "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU I JUST WANNA BE HAPPY DON'T WORRY JUST BE HAPPY".

"Disappointing"???? I am not "disappointed". I am damn well pissed. Maybe if more people got good and pissed, and off of their happy-happy asses and made a huge glorious stink and showed the political PTB that we are mad as hell and NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE we could finally get somewhere.

But don't you worry sweetie, you just go to your happy place, and us poor "sad" folks will do our best to fight the good fight for you.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

108. lol

for peopel who claim to want to help others you don't seem to even have the wherewithal to help yourself

[AngryAmish]

60. It is only hayseed hicks that call liberals smug.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

63. What are your objectives?

If you want to make yourself feel better and look good to the people who already agree with you, you can be as rude as you like.

If you want to have any impact on people who don't currently agree with you, you will be able to do so more effectively if you present yourself more maturely rather than descending to name-calling or abuse.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

72. I dont know you, but

I think you're awesome! Righteous rant!

[stupidicus]

73. that civility is way overrated and more an impediment than helpful

became clear to me quite quickly upon participating on the "internets" going on two decades ago now. One of the reasons why rightwingnuts have collectively become so stupendously stupid, etc, is because it was considered bad manners for far too long to call them exactly what they are.

Now they're even more stupid and shameless, and well insulated by the positive reinforcement they provide each other, in a "shamelessly stupid loves company" kinda way.

[Festivito]

78. Confidence looks like smugness to psychologically projecting dismissively smug RWingers.

Confidence is built in doing ones own research.
Dismissive smugness comes from listening to authoritarians paid enough that they could lie to their own mother with a straight face and a booming voice.

[Beartracks]

82. If I understand you correctly...

... you're referring to those who absolutely refuse to vote for Hillary should she become our nominee. Their major fallacy is that somehow the Dem establishment will finally "learn" that we don't want Republican-lite or centrist Dems if we just let let such candidates lose -- and a President Trump would certainly be a wake-up call, so the theory goes.

But....

Remember when the Republicans, following President Obama's election, bitterly whined that their guy obviously "wasn't conservative ENOUGH"? That's what we'd see the Democrats do if Trump gets in the White House, but it would go like this: "Obviously our candidate was still TOO LIBERAL."



So, yeah, while I'm a Bernie supporter -- cuz I think Dems need to be more "go-big-or-go-home" rather than centrist (basically, I don't think we can balance the rightward tilt of the political scales by running to the middle) -- I'd definitely vote for a centrist Dem before a rightwing loon any day. I hope most Bernie supporters see what I see: Bernie's candidacy *is* evidence that a large number of Americans actually are coming around to the idea that centrism may not be the right approach. All I can say is, we need to vote for the "most progressive" choice appearing on the GE ballot. Sanders might not get the nod this time, but it will certainly be a whole lot more difficult work for the next progressive if he /she has to follow a devastating Trump administration rather than a status quo Clinton administration.

======================

[madokie]

90. Spot on

Its nice to read the musings of a righteous rant

[retrowire]

91. who is calling libs smug here? nt

[HughBeaumont]

95. Not so much HERE . . .

Well, maybe in GD: P, which I don't go to. The one time I did venture in there, I saw what was akin to wingnut Red-Baiting fitting of Discussionist, so that was it for me.

It's more a recurring theme in news articles (and not Fox News either), 5 of which I linked to above.

It's like, if we let the centrists and Republicans walk all over us, we're milquetoasts.

If we grow a spine and refute their bullshit with facts, we're called "haterz", "Insufferable Know-it-alls" and "Smug".

This being, of course, against Republicans that aren't held to standards of any kind. But that's perfectly OK. Specifically, for them and not for us. Because, you know, reasons.

[Vote2016]

98. Hillary's trying to be Gore 2.0 (not a great model to begin with), but she's probably Carter in 1980

[NewImproved Deal]

103. There ARE a lot of smug, "New Democrat" Liberals...

Especially Clinton Machine Yuppies sneering at working-class people of both parties...

[link:|

[deathrind]

104. Critical thought...

Was exorcised from this arena quite effectively over the last 15yrs. The first 8 of those is when this really took place. Sarah Palin being a VP candidate clearly confirms this.

[He loved Big Brother]

109. The point I took away is actually going to make me a better liberal.

Which is, sure the sort of people liberals are smug about are voting against their own interests. But they're doing that anyway when they vote for Dems. They know the Republicans are screwing them, and Democrats are screwing them. So between the two, they'll pick the ones who refrain from bullying and teasing them.

I think political snark is starting to be over, anyway. It seems like a luxury afforded to a privileged demographic that is quickly reducing in number.