2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumProgressive Pragmatism versus Liberal Elitism
That is what this nominating contest boils down to, IMO. I am a long term activist and I recognize the 2 factions from decades of working side by side with liberals. The liberal elites have always been the minority, in my experience, even though they are often the loudest.
I think Bernie represents the liberal elites and Hillary represents the progressive pragmatists. She seems to think so as well, given her debate comment that she is a "liberal that likes to get things done." IME, the other faction doesn't get much of anything done, and that is why Bernie has so few achievements in his 25 years on congress.
Let me provide an illustrative example. We have seen, probably a dozen times at least, this claim by Bernie supporters that "Hillary sold fracking to the world." The liberal who wrote that article that is often cited here shows an elitist world view, IMO. By "the world" the writer actually meant Eastern European countries.
The writer also does not mention that Russia uses its oil and gas as a political weapon, and that every year when it gets cold they shut off gas and oil supplies to these countries, effectively black mailing them. Whether people in Eastern Europe are held under Russia's thumb, or even if they freeze to death for lack of a heating fuel is really of no concern to the liberal elitist. Their "liberal principles" are more important than the practical implications of fracking as a way to remove Russia's strong man tactics against poor European countries. The purity of their views is more important than the end result. IMO and experience.
Early on in this primary contest I had a back and forth here with a Bernie supporter who claimed that Dems like me were happy to throw issues under the bus. My argument was that progressive pragmatists put the whole agenda on the table and resolve as many as politically possible at any given time. Nothing is thrown under the bus -- politics is the art of achieving as much of the agenda as possible, and it takes political capital to do so, so you spend it where you will get the most bang for the buck. S/he was incensed by that attitude. But it really is how we move the agenda forward. Always has been in my 38 years of paying attention and working on issues. That's my view.
So that is why I believe the liberal elites, or purists if you prefer, value warm fuzzies over actually being effective. And that is why, in my view, that many folks like Bernie's proposals even if they logically know that none of them will ever pass even if he was elected. And they hate Hillary because she is a pragmatist instead of a purist or elitist.
Conversely, I favor pragmatic proposals that are achievable even if they aren't the ultimate liberal wet dream. I have been called a "republican" several times today and in the past by Bernie supporters for this view. But I am no less a liberal than his supporters.
I think that is the major difference that explains the extreme comments about Hillary and her supporters here. You just have a very different way of looking at politics compared to the majority of Dems. IMO.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Fantastic post!!
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)You need foundations to build on.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)In fact, she was instrumental in the largest expansion of Medicaid at the time, even as first lady. And there are many, many, many examples of her doing similar things throughout her career. Education, women's rights, exhorting LGBT rights to the world as SOS. The list goes on and on.
If you do not realize she is a liberal progressive than you simply do not know her history. End of story.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)Besides, I'm talking about principles and degrees. On a scale, she is very, very much leaning right and I see no reason to believe she wouldn't go even further given the chance. We are still in primary season - idealism is the whole point. If not now, when? There is a time and place for her so-called pragmatism and now is not the time.
I'm sticking with Bernie.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Bernie supporters say that a lot but can never seem to back it up with specifics. Can you?
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)I'm not doing your homework for you. Google it.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Crickets. As usual.
At some point I think you folks need to face the fact that these baseless accusations are figments of your imagination.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)genuinely interested and open to changing your mind, I might have taken the time. But since this conversation has devolved, I have better things to do.
The information you ask for is readily available, if you really wanted to know, you'd find it. I'm not here on DU to get into useless battles. You are going to vote for whoever you want, nothing I say is going to change that so... No, it's not crickets at all. I just don't choose this dance.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But I have learned that never happens with Bernie supporters. No surprise. If any of you could, you would. I am sure.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)But for me...
Her stance on war, her Wall Street connections, XL Pipeline and general neoliberal 'business before people' values, ties to Walmart to name a few. The list is long and her record is clear - it is lukewarm progressive at best. Not to mention her slick promises, history of triangulation and complete lack of authenticity. I don't trust her at all. She may be an effective politician but then, I'm sick of politicians. I want leaders.
She may do what she calls "getting things done" but at what cost? No, she is the wrong woman for the job. I am not voting against Conservatism, I am voting for Progressivism and she is clearly not the one.
Addendum - I notice too that you assigned the term elite to Bernie and not Hillary ... 
on what planet is Hillary not elite? You've got that backwards.
If you want specifics - Google them.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)or support if she is elected. Don't forget her obligations to Wall Street and big pharma. It WILL happen. She has proven too many times to say one thing and change her actions based on issues important to middle-class families. So before MaggieD asks, her position on foreign policy, TPP and the oil pipeline are three. Just watch how she will switch, except the pipeline which President Obama already said no to.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)She was very explicit about what would move her to support it, many, many times over the past two years, AND the fact that she flatly states it does not meet her standards for an acceptable trade agreement, you MAKE UP IN YOUR HEAD that something different is the case?
That is the epitome of why I cannot join with the Bernie peeps. You appear to be as impervious to facts as the tea party people that make me loathe republicans. I will fight to the death to ensure that mentality never takes over our party.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)thinking applies equally to you. But I'll leave the snark out of it. Hill was a backer of other trade agreements that damaged this country like her hubby's NAFTA agreement. So start asking yourself why would she suddenly oppose the "gold standard" trade deal she promoted and worked on? Pure politics. It is a known fact the people's actions are repeated based on their personality and characmter. So give me a reason to believe Hill would now change her prior stripes. Tell me how she went from agreeing with Pres Obama's foreign policy back to hawk (Iraq war vote).
floriduck
(2,262 posts)to stop lumping people's opinions into categories. Tea Partiers are a damaging breed that were created with help from conservatives. Bernie supporters are tired of politics over fairness. We believe life in the 1950s were far better when a single parent income could allow home purchases, even while paying a higher tax rate.
It is our belief that today's political landscape is a continuation of the severe damage done by the Reagan administration. And we're tired of it and frustrated by it. One of his actions was to cut mental health funding and look what that did with incidents like yesterday's San Bernardino shooting. Tell me how money in politics doesn't modify political decisions. And how do the candidates compare on this major factor. Can you tell me how Hill's leadership will result in Wall Street reform, since Glass-Stegel is off her radar? Give me a reason to believe she will do what she says based on her actions.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)... to back up their specious claims. And they know it.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)i'm sorry but your princess is in another castle
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Hypocrisy
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Progressive means 'liberal'.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)I've been meaning to post this since the 17th iteration of "Hillary sold fracking to the world" since it is such a perfect example of the differences I see between the factions.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)There's the sensible woodchuck sort of "pragmatism," which is designed to continuously give up ground and pander to the corporate masters, and then there is the kind of progressive pragmatism: to know when you've achieved as much as you can, to constantly work to take steps forward, and to fucking STAND YOUR GROUND on what has already been accomplished.
HRC is the sensible woodchuck "pragamatist," and Sanders is the true progressive pragmatist, based on their records.
I think it's a right-wing strategy to link "liberal" with "elitism," and it dismays me that neo-liberals would be dishonest enough to adopt that strategy.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)What say you? Do you have a specific example?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)... I ask every Bernie supporter that makes the claim that she panders to corporations. Please provide a concrete example. Oddly, I have asked that question at least a hundred times of Bernie supporters, and I have yet to be provided a single example. Even Bernie could not come up with one when asked in the last debate.
Will you be the first one that can actually answer with an example? Thanks in advance.
P.S. Bernie doesn't have a pragmatic bone in his body. That is why he has been in congress for 25 years with almost nothing to show for it.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)"pandering?" Taking positions that she doesn't mean to get votes, or taking money from corporations and supporting their policies? Really, all you have to do to say that no one provides a "concrete example" is to disagree that the examples demonstrate "pandering." It's not likely you'd acknowledge any example provided you, concrete or not.
One could say she doesn't mean what she says because she seems to shift her stances with every poll, but when anyone claims that, they're told she's "evolving," and that her evolution should be embraced. That's "evolving," and "triangulating." Or, from my perspective, it's pandering by taking positions she doesn't mean to get votes.
This has sent a chill into the hearts of a particular Washington specimen: the self-appointed guardians of order. Mark Halperin flatly accused Clinton of lying about her opposition to TPP. Others pointed to Clinton’s praise for TPP in her recent book, or the 45 times she’s spoken out in favor of it. And Ezra Klein pronounced himself “unnerved” because it shows her as calculating and poll-driven.
In other words, the theory goes, Clinton is pandering, taking a position that she may not sincerely support to appease a faction of the constituency she wants in her corner. Unions don’t like TPP or the Cadillac tax, and with Bernie Sanders breathing down her neck, Clinton had to adjust her profile to keep their endorsements rolling in.
There are definitely signs that Clinton had prior (and very possibly, future) support for TPP. Her top policy advisor on the deal while at the State Department, Robert Hormats, praised it the day before she came out against it. If you take the temperature of those in her policy orbit, you would probably find more supporters than opponents.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/10/09/Praise-Hillary-Clinton-s-Shameless-Pandering
If pandering involves her somewhat questionable dealings with corporations, DUers are certainly not alone in pointing them out. Again, I doubt that you'd ever acknowledge the obvious, concrete problems with her corporate ties.
Although Hillary Clinton was a vocal advocate for nonproliferation during her 2008 presidential bid, she seemingly shifted gears on the issue after well-connected Indian officials lavished her husband with paid speaking engagements, and his foundation with generous donations.
Indian money began flowing to the philanthropy after a bill that would have softened restrictions on nuclear trade with the country met resistance in Congress. At the time, then-New York Sen. Hillary Clinton was an opponent of the legislation.
Amar Singh, a member of India's parliament, began to pour money into the Clinton Foundation. He donated between $1 million and $5 million, even though it was later revealed his entire net worth was only $5 million.
After a two-hour dinner with Hillary Clinton in New York City in September 2008, Singh told the press in his country that Hillary Clinton had informed him Democrats would not block the nuclear deal and that she had promised to give "all the support" it needed to pass.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/top-10-clinton-conflicts-of-interest/article/2564035
Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal notes that while the foundation also forswore donations from foreign governments while Hillary Clinton was helming the State Department, "that didn’t stop the foundation from raising millions of dollars from foreigners with connections to their home governments, a review of foundation disclosures shows." Specifically:
All told, more than a dozen foreign individuals and their foundations and companies were large donors to the Clinton Foundation in the years after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, collectively giving between $34 million and $68 million, foundation records show. Some donors also provided funding directly to charitable projects sponsored by the foundation, valued by the organization at $60 million.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/hillarys-campaign-is-built-on-a-shaky-foundation/388324/
Interestingly enough, this is the most I've posted about HRC since the primaries began. I'll point out that it's only because you asked. I don't really have any interest in spending time talking about Clinton.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Answer me honestly - wouldn't it be great if we had a major trade proposal that guaranteed workers in Asian markets to organize into unions? Wouldn't that do more to level the playing field than anything to date?
Wouldn't it help workers here if currency manipulation could be stopped, artificially cheapening products imported from Asian markets?
You cannot credibly answer no to either of those questions. Right?
So is there some reason she shouldn't have promoted those ideas? And when they didn't make it into the final agreement she said she wouldn't support it. She voted against CAFTA as a senator, so that tends to support the concept that she is against trade agreements that don't benefit workers. Right?
Meanwhile Bernie hasn't got a clue how to solve the problems inherent in this global economy. And you have failed to make a case for her being a "corporate dem." If she is a corporate Dem why in the world would she vote against CAFTA?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Same billshit that has been said about every one of these "free trade corporate giveaways"
This one is different. This time we really really mean it. Trust us.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)We elect them after all. I do believe those other countries have their own governments. The global economy is not one where we all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
And all the unions in the world won't change the fact that for the short- to intermediate-term their hourly wages, even with unionization, are lower than Americans'.
Not in the form of the TPP.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)That little part of it that gives corporations the right to sue countries for passing laws that hurt their business, and the judgement is made by a non-elected group with no right of appeal. We've known about this for years, yet apparently it wasn't enough to stop Hillary calling this treaty the 'gold standard'. Can you explain this?
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)pragmatism, you are now trying to sell the Great Revolutionary as a pragmatist? Pretzel time.
I am not NOW trying to point out Sanders' pragmatism.
I've always been aware of it. It just isn't what neo-liberals usually mean when they trot out the term. So no...he's not the sort of pragmatist that neo-liberal Democrats embrace: the pragmatist that happily helps march the nation further and further to the right because doing anything else is "impossible."
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)If he's pragmatic that must mean he has at least one proposal that can pass, right? What is it? And if he is pragmatic as you claim, why has he not been able to achieve much of anything in congress over 25 years?
In other words, what is your EVIDENCE that he has a pragmatic bone in his body? I sure haven't seen it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Before he took office people said the same shit. He' just a wild eyed radical...won'get anything done
Lo and behold he rolled up his sleeves and got the city running wel and more effectively
l, including reforming the boring city department stuff...And kept getting reelected by large margins....Even Republicans acknowledged it
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Usually in response to someone with a question or suggestion just like yours.
If you haven't seen it, you haven't been looking, or you haven't wanted to.
Here's just one response, found in a few seconds of typing:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251605502
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Bernie has written and gotten passed.
What good is your claiming pragmatism, if it accomplishes nothing?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Do any of you REALLY think that single payer is going to pass if Bernie were to be elected? Hell, even Bernie doesn't think any of his proposals would pass.
If Hillary supporters wanted to be real they might just say that his supporters aren't really all that interested in helping real people given all the pie in the sky un-passable stuff he is proposing.
I choose to be more generous. I just think his supporters are horribly misguided and a bit politically naive.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I absolutely believe that it's worth trying. I know that there is nothing lost from trying. it might not pass, that's true. But that's no reason not to make the effort. I am absolutely certain that if no effort is made, it will never be achieved.
I choose to be more generous. I just think his supporters are horribly misguided and a bit politically naive.
I like how you throw out an insult and then pretend that you're not throwing out insults. Ah well.
Have you ever been part of a union negotiation team, maggieD? Honest question, have you?
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)If you want single payer you need to put the things in place that will get you there
You have to work at it that is pragmatic.
Just trying it even if it looks like it won't pass is idealistic.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I said put things in place to get there didn't I?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It is spending time on realistic policy. Under what possible scenario is Bernie's pipe dream going to pass considering he can't even get a single Dem in congress to sign on? Please explain why the time and political capital shouldn't be used on something that will actually help people.
Or is it like Bulgaria - they should just freeze to death instead of learning how to produce their own heating fuel?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Their so called pragmatism gave us sequestration
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Do you think the same about rethugs trying to repeal the ACA 60 times? Or do you think it's a waste and purely to soothe the nuts in their party? Because that is what I think.
It is exactly the same with the liberal elites.
I have been part of lots of negotiations. Every day in fact. Also, I was raised by two union reps. Bernie is the worst "negotiator" I have ever seen. And that is evidenced by the fact that is single payer proposal has been sitting there for 2 years and does not have a single solitary co-sponsor. Did you know that?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And that is what your position is. "It's hard! Republicans might not like it! Let's not even try!"
Alright. So, you and your parents. Do you go into a negotiation with just the absolute bare-bones essentials, and try to talk your way up against management? Do you say "Okay, this is what my people want, but I'm willing to cut you a deal..." before even sitting down? Of course you don't - or at least I hope to hell you don't, becuase the first is bass-ackwards and hte second is just reprehensible.
Yet that's what Clinton is doing. That's what you're arguing for.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Can you do that? Unions sure as fuck don't do that. That's why they support Hillary and not Bernie.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It reminds me of the period between the 2008 and 2012 campaigns when gay Democrats were sneered and spit at for wanting "ponies" because equal rights was "pie in the sky." It's too hard! Republicans don't like it! Better keep our powder dry! How dare you criticize a Democrat for not supporting your rights?!
And yes, unions ask for things their critics and haters would deride as "pie in the sky." Overshoot is a necessary part of negotiations, as it gives you something to negotiate with. Otherwise you're just left begging management to not cut your essential items. of course you don't ask for outrageous shit like "a week's paid vacation at disneyworld" - but I hardly think Seeking the same rights as those enjoyed in every other major nation (and quite a number of smaller ones!) is "outrageous."
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It wouldn't be pie in the sky if you could make a credible case for how he passes it. And apparently you cannot.
It has nothing to do with not trying hard enough. It has to do with the fact that we have a government structure that simply does not allow the minority to have their way. Is that shocking to you? Hell, he can't even get Dems to support it.
So how is it not pie in the sky if he can't even get Dems to sign on 2 years into proposing it?
Don't just come back with silliness and deflection. It's a serious and important question. It really is no different than promising everyone a free pony. And it is apparent to me that YOU don't know anything about union negotiations because they don't sit down at the table and ask for $500 bucks an hour when they are really after $50.
Try that when you buy a house. Go look at million dollar houses and then make an offer of $250K. See how that pie in the sky works.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)How does any president get anything passed? It's a lot of up-front appeal and backroom arm-bending. Same way LBJ got the civil rights act implemented, against the greater part of both parties. it's how Obama got the ACA through, against the will of both parties - remember, Democrats weren't on uniformly board that one either - because (again) "It's too hard! republicans might not like it! Run away!"
Clinton also spit and snarled about Obama's healthcare plans in the '08 campaign, and her supporters called that "pie in the sky" and "never gonna happen" too.
I think maybe a better angle is to ask, why aren't those Democrats on board? is single-payer really such an outrageous, abhorrent idea to our party? It really seems to disgust and enrage you. Why?
Once again, I am reminded of 2008, and the "democrats" sneering at gay people about "wanting ponies." And now the lot of you all line up to act like you were on board from day one. it's fascinating.
No, but if you talk to people who hate unions, you'll come away with the idea that they do. Sort of like when yalking to someone who hates Bernie Sanders, you'll come away with the idea that single payer is just like "asking for $500 an hour."
Overshoot is an integral part of negotiation. if you only come to the table with hte bare essentials, you will end up negotiating away those essentials. There's a finesse to it, you don't "go crazy" as with your nonsensical hyperbole, but you do ask for more than you expect to get out of the negotiations, in order to better ensure that you actually do get what you expect after it's all negotiated down. And if you get some of the extra too, hey, who's to complain?
Trying to buy property from someone else, and negotiating for your rights as a worker (or a human being) aren't directly comparable, I hope you do understand that.
okasha
(11,573 posts)because he had political capital to spend. He had tons of it, all collected through decades of doing favors for and trading votes with his fellow Congressional Democrats.
Bernie has nothing comparable. He has fuck-all to bargain with. Fortunately, that won't matter. He's bleeding support as reality sets in, and the Quinnipac figures show he's losing those voters to Hillary and isn't picking up replacements from O'Malley. After Super Tuesday, possibly before, Sanders will be only a footnote in American electoral politics.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Now, any prognosis of success or fail requires the ability of precognition. Otherwise we're just spanking ourselves off based on which candidate we support, aren't we?
The argument you and MaggieD present comes down to that core of Clinton supporter philosophy: "it looks hard, so we better not try."
okasha
(11,573 posts)It comes down to "That's going go be hard as hell, so we'd better send in someone who has the ability and the tools to do it. "
To paraphrase the President, you don't take a BB gun to a potentially nuclear confrontation.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Seriously, let's take your argument:
Alright. Does Clinton? I'd think she does. So. Why isn't she going to try? Why does she keep undercutting everything? "The other candidates want $15, but I'll go as low as $12!" If she has all this political power behind her, all this influence and favor-trading muscle... why not call for single-payer? What's so abhorrent about it to her?
okasha
(11,573 posts)LBJ again: "Politics is the art of the possible." What Hillary has actually called for is not a minimum wage but a living wage, which is generally more than $15/hour. That $12 is a more realistic initial goal, the first step in incremental change. Getting up to $19-20/hour is not going to happen all at once or easily.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Fact is, we're looking at a congress that thinks the minimum wage itself ought to be abolished. $12, $15, or maggieD's $500 are all equally "realistic" with the likes of Paul Ryan holding the gavel.
And I'm afraid that no, Clinton did not call for a living wage. A living wage would have mandated cost-of-living adjustments. Clinton has called for a $12 minimum wage, with the hand-wave that local governments can expand on that as they see fit. Of course, local governments can already expand on the federal minimum... and most aren't doing so. No reason to think they'll do so for a $12 minimum.
So why a $12 minimum? Really. It's not more imminently achievable than $15, any more than it is less achievable than $9. She could have joined with the other Democrats and workers and unions, and lend her weight to the $15 movement. A united front, making achievement that much more likely.
Instead she stuck her foot out and tried to trip it up. She counter-offered, for no discernible reason except to try to cut ahead with the sort of people a Democrat shouldn't want to be getting ahead with. She's done it on health care. She's done it on education. It's not because these things are unobtainable, or "pie in the sky." Hell with her apparent clout, they'd likely fall right into our hands (isn't she amazing? *dreamy sigh*) but instead she plays the lowballing opportunist, to our disadvantage.
I just can't get behind that, and I really can't understand why anyone else would.
okasha
(11,573 posts)It's in the Democratic platform, after all. That's something a Democrat should know, and, presumably, support.
Just curious. Since you've already given up on any increase in the minimum wage, what does it matter who asks for how much? If it really is all wasted effort, in your view, shouldn't the candidates be supporting changes that can be achieved? Again, back to "art of the possible."
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Because you cannot. There is no rational path to single payer and politically aware people know that. You're being shined on by a pol that is hoping to convince enough people to buy the shit he doesn't even buy himself.
It's pretty amusing. But the reality is there will always be folks that buy that kind of thing. Pols prey on it for their own aggrandizement. Luckily Hillary doesn't do that kind of thing.
But you are being fooled handily by a guy that knows damn well, through 25 years of accomplishing nothing that he is putting one over on you. If you enjoy that because it makes you feel good, so be it. Just don't be pissed because the rest of us don't.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)So what's your theory on what this nefarious, lying, serpent-tongued shyster is doing all this shit for, hmmm?
A humongous ego and self aggrandizement. Very similar to Donald Trump. Does it not piss you off that he is pulling the wool over your eyes? I mean he COULD have been effective in congress over the past 25 years, but frankly, I just don't think he cares beyond his own ego. It's got to be about Bernie or its not worth it to Bernie.
You can take that to the bank.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Socialism - not so much.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)My how far they have fallen
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)excellent OP! 
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It was high time we got real about this stuff here.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)That would be most of the definition of her.
But the particularly partisan Bernie supporters as "liberals?" NO. I am a liberal and have been strongly struck many times here by the fact that these hostile, combative, hyper-partisan people are very, very different, and specifically NOT liberal. I have nothing in common with them, no more than with tea-partiers, except an intersection on some issues, but the issues are paramount with me, and supporting an inspiring personality and exercising their hostility on their evil opponents is paramount with most of them.
Many often express dislike of liberals to the point that an identification of anti-liberals fits them, also left-wing reactionaries, far left but not liberal. Others I suspect lack sufficient self awareness to be able to label themselves into any recognized grouping. "Progressive" changes meaning almost from person to person these days, after all. Here the hyper-ardent have decided it'll mean pro-Bernie and burn down the establishment.
And others probably are hiding where they come from, although a few (typically more balanced Bernie supporters) have admitted they are conservative or were Republicans. A large number display the typical delayed populist anger of the unengaged who finally became angry, and those could come from anywhere. Pew says there is a whole group of conservatives who are currently leaning left economically, but right socially, and I'm sure DU's become a gathering place for some of those -- witness the racial tensions here.
So, NOT liberal, please? Liberal is a fine and noble thing to be. Most of the advances of civilization are the result of liberal thinking on societies.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)The only thing pragmatic about a Corporate Democrat OR a Corporate Republican is that dancing to the tune of the corporations and 1% it greatly enhances their opportunity of winning.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Not a single Bernie supporter has ever been able to do that for me. Maybe you will be the very first.
anti partisan
(429 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That would indicate he is pragmatic. I eagerly await your response. Thanks in advance.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Otherwise, not much. But that's how democracy works.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Do you really think winning the presidency will translate into ANY of his proposals passing? How? Even the Dems in congress don't support his proposals.
The hubris is astounding. Reminds me of Bush who really thought he could privatize SS after 2004. LOL!
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Maybe we need dems in congress who support more progressive ideals then? That is, if he wins the election he will have shown that the country is more liberal than people think, and congress critters will quickly get the idea. It is about time we kicked this country in the leftward direction; it seems to be in a rightward drift since Reagan.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)So what is the plan? Unicorns and rainbows?
Let me ask you something - are you just content to let things go unaccomplished because you would like the warm fuzzies associated with electing Bernie? Does his record of no real accomplishments make no difference to you? Are you content with kidding yourself that something would be different versus his congressional career where even Dems don't support his proposals if only he was president?
Ok, assuming you are not trolling me and are actually curious about my political ambitions for the country, I'll try to answer. If you choose to respond, please dispense with the snark and personal disdain. It really is quite distasteful.
* We may not have many pro Bernie Dems in congress currently; but we can elect some if we try. You say "but you're not getting pro Bernie Dems in congress" -- says who? Maybe if we try and the American people like his ideas, we can elect some. And for the rest, we work to persuade the current congress people that enough Americans support his policies. That is what democracy means to me.
* "let things go unaccomplished because you would like the warm fuzzies associated with electing Bernie": No, I assure you I will continue to be outspoken and active in politics to work for what I believe in regardless of who wins the election. As for electing Bernie, there will be no warm fuzzies; those are reserved for when we accomplish free tuition at universities (hey, Germany does it and they have some damn good universities) or single payer. Until then we work our asses off for the cause.
* "Are you content with kidding yourself that something would be different versus his congressional career where even Dems don't support his proposals if only he was president?" -- Are you trying to come across as an asshole? I am not kidding myself about anything. That you think I am not dead serious about the long term direction I want to see this country headed means you fail to grasp anything I stand for. Bernie is part of that (Warren would be if she ran as well), I care little about individual candidates outside of the particular election we are fighting in.
* As for his accomplishments, I read a good article when I was much younger by Matt Taibbi, "Inside the Horror Show That Is Congress", on how the sausage gets made in Congress. It made clear to me that those not in leadership have no chance of accomplishing much except by using the amendment process. As for floor votes, he has voted in a way that represents my opinions on most of the major issues facing America. Good enough for me. In his only leadership position in the Senate, he worked pragmatically to accomplish a major piece of Veterans legislation that Brookings has since studied to see how bipartisanship can work because it was an unlikely success.
These are some of the reasons I am not at all worried about Bernie moving the country in the right direction. He is not a savior; he is simply the best candidate (based on past votes, position statements, and personal integrity) for President we have fighting for progressive causes this time around. The fight will go on much longer than his inauguration, and even longer than his successor's.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Do everything by executive order and let them fight it out in the courts. No more capitulating to the sociopathic right.
name not needed
(11,660 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)She just isn't one.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)working people and unions. Shame on them!
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)How could you possibly not realize that? They call them limousine liberals. 
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)There are a lot of rich Democrats who tend toward being fairly liberal on social issues - But rich "leftist" - again I have heard of such a thing - There are a few celebrities who probably fit into that category, I suppose - but never personally met one. I doubt there are many among the rank and file of door ringers and phone bankers.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)They are plenty of them. So let's stop pretending limousine liberals don't actually exist. They are the very core of liberal elites.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)attacks on Hillary - I can only say that go to any Bernie function and go to Hillary function and see who are the core of those respective movements are.
Again, you cannot expect people to not believe what they see with their own eyes or forget what they recall with their own memories. All the hateful speech in the world cannot accomplish that.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Been there, done that. Moved them the fuck out of the way so we could actually pass legislation. They then bitch about not having a seat at the table, in surprise, after they have spent the whole election season denigrating Dems.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)with denigrating Dems while denigrating Dems.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)In what universe? Also, Bernie is NOT a DEM. Please stop pretending he is.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)He is entirely unsuitable to be president of the US though.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)nominee?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I'm a Democrat. He is NOT a Democrat. I wouldn't vote for him if you held a gun to my head, just like I would never and have never voted for a republican in my 38 years of voting. In fact in the minuscule chance that he was nominated I would never give another red cent to the party, knock doors, or phone bank for Dems.
Not in a million fucking years. And frankly, at least 50% of that feeling could be credited to his supporters who have spent the last several years smearing the shit out of real Democrats.
So no, never, ever, ever would I vote for him. Never.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)WHERE?
WHERE?
WHERE?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)I find your calls for purity amusing
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)comes from currency speculation - something most people on the left would outlaw and most "pragmatic progressives" raise money from.
alc
(1,151 posts)It doesn't matter who agrees with your analysis or disagrees or has minor differences. Primaries will decide popular support and regardless of the analysis we need positive reasons to support the winner for the general. This seems like a useful discussion for arguments to use to support the winner with our real life interactions
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It may be, but in my experience as an LGBT activist I can tell you that the liberal elites really, really prevented any progress. While most of us were trying to get anti-discrimination and domestic partnership laws passed as an incremental move toward marriage years ago they were literally SCREAMING at our Dem allies in the state house and thus closing the door to anything because they wanted MARRIAGE and they wanted it now.
I often wondered how many LGBT people lots their jobs or were denied housing because the liberal elites couldn't settle for incremental progress and therefore got NONE. In fact it was not until we totally pushed them out of the way that we got the change we sought. It was sad, but we simply had to marginalize them in order to make any progress. And within 5 years all the dominos fell in our state.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I've really never met any LGBT people who were so snarky toward more aggressive political actions and stances because every single right we have started out as an insanely radical position to hold, most of the gains made by our community as well as the legendary emergency activism of the AIDS era came by way of uncompromising activists communicating in strong and certain language. So this whole disdain you constantly express in that regard is not something I am used to in the LGBT community, even with more conservative people, because you have to honor those who did all of that brave stuff and were the vanguard we all followed. How can you not? I have no idea. Stonewall, ACT UP, Harvey Milk, these were not 'pragmatic' they were direct action radical, and we are all of us in debt to what they did, what so many others did, all of us even those who do not know it.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)No one at HRC ever espoused the beliefs you espouse. Never. And they never joined HRC either, because they loathed the pragmatism of the organization. Believe me, they had to move your type out of the way to get things done.
I don't know where you think you were an activist, but it certainly wasn't in the thick of the movement. And that avatar is amusing given that you would have hated that org had you been in the movement. It just wasn't radical enough for extremists.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Though I would not claim to have been an activist on LGBT issues during that time period - I was living in the Bay Area and San Francisco itself during that era. I most certainly do remember Harvey Milk and others being denounced by the "more respectable wing" of the movement as a radical. It was in many ways the more radical elements of the movement that pushed the envelope and made the movement happen. You cannot expect people who where there to not remember what happened.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And they don't like Bernie claiming he was some sort of champion when he was spouting the same "state's rights" shit as every other pol.
I don't care that Bernie didn't get off his ass. I care that he is lying about it now. And make no mistake. He was no champion. I was there. Bernie didn't do shit for us. He ignored us just as he has Latinos, AA, and women.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)AS I'm sure you know, when Clinton was pushing DOMA in order to block states from allowing gay marriage. Sen. Sanders simply countered Clinton's anti-gay marriage position by arguing that the federal government did not have the right to override a state that allow's gay marriage. That was as Bernie "state's rights position" as I am sure you know.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Nothing pisses off real activists than pols pretending they were their champion when the truth is they were yammering about states rights instead of actually being their champion.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)On Wed Dec 2, 2015, 11:26 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
No you weren't
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=868245
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
A direct personal attack like this and claiming that this activist was not really activist is about as uncivil as one can get. It is in every way, disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, and otherwise inappropriate.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Dec 2, 2015, 11:34 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Meh!
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)You cannot tell the truth about Bernie here. It upsets his devotees.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)I'm just glad that DU doesn't resemble the real world, in any way. 
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)When I first came out, there was no HRC. In their early years, I was a contributor to them. Later all of my attentions went to ACT UP, Minority AIDS Project Los Angeles, and LGBT youth support groups. HRC is by no means the definitive LGBT organization. Straight people think that is is, but it is not.
Here is a story about HRC and ACT UP:
ACT UP Gathers To Protest HRC’s Annual Black Tie Gala; Here’s Why
"ACT UP explained their reasoning in more detail via their Facebook page:
HRC has created an LGBT equality index to score the Fortune 500 companies, but there’s no mention of HIV and the thousands of LGBT people with HIV in the workplace. We demand that HRC include several criteria to evaluate companies on their treatment of employees living with HIV, as well as their contributions to organizations and causes relate [sic] to reducing the incidence of HIV among LGBT Americans, particularly among the young. For over 30 years, too many have been fired, harassed, outed and discriminated against at work for having HIV. Also at this gala, many of the corporations that HRC will honor actively work against the interests of middle-class and poor Americans, including people with HIV. ACT UP denounces this frequent practice of ‘”pinkwashing” whereby corporations with policies and practices that undermine the people’s well-being are given positive publicity in exchange for maintaining LGBT-friendly (or just equal) workplaces. This is short-sighted and divisive. We demand that HRC develop other criteria that takes into account the impact of companies’ policies on every American, not just LGBT Americans."
http://www.queerty.com/act-up-gathers-to-protest-hrcs-annual-black-tie-gala-heres-why-20150202
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)it was yesterday. 
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)A proper analogy would be if you were claiming the Stonewall activists actually believed the result of their protest was going to be marriage rights. But they didn't. Because they weren't naïve like some of the folks here.
No LGBT activist thought that back then, and they were right. Here is reality - it takes work, and coalition building, and then incremental change. Being a keyboard warrior at DU is not going to change anything. And as far as I can tell that's what most Bernie supporters are. Keyboard warriors who think discussion forums and facebook and twitter are a substitute for actual work.
It isn't. And smearing Hillary 24/7 is not going to get you a thing, except NO seat at the table when it is all said and done. Rail all you want. Not going to make any difference at all. Never has. Never will.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)maximum and compromise there. Sen. Sanders is not some radical making outlandish demands. He is putting forward ideas that are absolutely mainstream in the world of modern western democracy. I doubt people believe that America can be transformed into a modern, liberal, western democracy over night or in one term or even two terms. Even Ronald Reagan came no where near accomplishing the Reagan agenda in his term, thank God. Much of it had to wait until a Democrat was in office but with a Republican Congress before they could make the major cuts in public assistance and regulation of Wall Street before they could accomplish some of their long term goals. Sen. Sanders can only be the beginning of moving our country forward.
Since I have NEVER said anything even remotely negative about Hillary Clinton on this or any other Internet forum - it seems to me that you are suggesting that the mere advocating of a progressive agenda or supporting another candidate counts as smearing Hillary 24/7. Don't you think that is just a bit over the top?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... that he is fully aware he cannot pass. That's called dishonesty in my part of the neighborhood. Real Dems don't fall for it.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)sky. Without a vision there is no direction. One does not begin negotiations by beginning with the least one might get.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)arresting them for being gay, colluding with the organized criminals that owned the only bars that would have us. People who are being jailed for talking to each other or for dressing 'wrong' are not thinking about marriage rights. No one was. It was not because the naive wanted marriage and others knew better. When Stonewall happened, there were literally laws against being gay, trans, bi. They jailed us. They beat us. The blackmailed us.
And marriage was not an issue for years and years to come, it was not on the mind of Harvey Milk, his largest legislative battle was against the Briggs Amendment which bluntly asked voters 'Yes or No, should we fire all the gay teachers and those who support them?'. That's what society was back then. it was not about Wedding Planning, it was about employment and not being extorted.
Then of course came the AIDS crisis in the late 80's which again placed dozens of priorities above 'marriage rights' such as the right to live past 30.
The very idea that you think Stonewall activists were parsing out strategy to attain marriage rights suggests a deep and wide lack of understanding of the history of the LGBT community, a community that is comprised of all of those letters, not just the 'married until midlife, now a Lesbian' segment, which is a fine segment but not the only one. Gay men, trans men and women, bisexual men and women all exist as well, and 'marriage rights' were not the objective until very recent years.
It is shocking, really, to see anyone look at the Era of A Thousand Funerals and claim it was all about weddings.
LGBT politics has been about employment, housing, fair policing and for the love of all that is holy it has been about health care and equal access for everyone, rich or poor, gay or straight, to the best possible education and medical treatments.
Your reductive reviews of the past leave out most of the factual history of that past.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)I Had Know Idea I Was... Elite...
But thanks either way.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)AA and LGBT people aren't stupid and don't actually have Stockholm syndrome either. So there is that.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)You don't get that ?
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)The thread is still out there, you know.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And I don't need a decoder ring to figure out that was what you were saying with your Stockholm post thread to avoid a hide for calling people that don't support Bernie stupid.
I will guess that you are neither AA or LGBT - right? I am absolutely positive from your posts that I am correct. And I firmly reject your ridiculous assertion that AA and LGBT people don't vote in their best interest. That's a con talking point from way back. And it is not more palatable because it was posted on DU.
It was offensive as shit to minorities in case you haven't figured that out yet. If I was you I would delete it. It will follow you the rest of your days here. Count on that.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
okasha
(11,573 posts)
ismnotwasm
(41,979 posts)Which is what far too many "elites" aka "more liberal than thou" espouse. Reducing complex situations to meme's and paranoia. It's frustrating and ridiculous at the same time. Pragmatism doesn't take away my liberal cred, it means I want solutions that will work.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)I agree with it. 
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Despite the Hillary supporter mandatory time outs around here, it needed to be said. IMO.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)Except yourself.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Be sure to post that on his Face Book page. Oh wait, someone already did that.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Wow, that is truly desperate. LOL!
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)“Why do you want to destroy the love they hold in their hearts? Why do you want to crush their hopes, their dreams, their unions, their aspirations? We are talking about human beings, people like you.”
Hillary still rationalizes DOMA. Lewis spoke clearly about and he was correct at the time, joining Bernie Sanders in voting No on DOMA.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That's how politics works. Surprise. Should pols endorse someone they know will lose so they can have the warm fuzzies? I refer you to the OP. Can't get shit done if you get on the loser bus. Only folks that get on the loser bus are the ones that don't actually give a shit about advancing the agenda. They prefer the warm fuzzies. John Lewis is not one of the losers. He cares about getting shit done. And that makes him exactly the kind of politician we need.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)posts doesn't really mean much.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Yeah, no. Bernie supporters appear to live in some alternate universe that bears little relation to reality. IMO.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)However, I would consider Killer Mike's endorsement more heartfelt.
In 2008, John Lewis turned his back on Clinton when he didn't think she would win.
Killer Mike is not stupid, he knows Bernie is very very unlikely to win, however he is going on record supporting Sanders.
There is a difference.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)AA don't support him; Latinos don't support him; unions don't support him; women don't support him. The polls are clear. And they don't break down LGBT support in polls, but I can tell you most LGBT don't support him either.
ALL of those groups need a powerful, EFFECTIVE, pragmatic presidential leader. And he just ain't it. All those folks aren't wrong. Sorry to break it to you.
None of those groups can afford the warm fuzzies as a substitute to real action. Bernie is simply not capable of real action as his history in congress has clearly shown.
So his support is limited to those that value the warm fuzzies over real achievements. And that is why he will not win.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)should relax and take a chill pill.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)You are mistaken that my belief that this site should not be used as a place to smear Dem candidates is a sign of worry. I will repeat for you what I have posted in previous OPs.
Not a damn thing said here is going to effect the nomination in any way whatsoever. All his supporters are doing with nonstop Hillary smears 24/7 is making real Dems loathe Bernie and his supporters. That's it. If that is the goal, congrats. If you think the keyboard warriors are making any other difference whatsoever you are wrong.
And if you were actually an activist you would know that without me having to tell you. Have a nice evening.
earthside
(6,960 posts)Hillary Clinton is the elitist of the elites.
Political wife, political and government insider for nearly half a century, a multimillionaire supported by billionaires and corporatists. Hillary Clinton is textbook wine and cheese liberal who thinks she has all the answers and knows what is best for all the rest of us. The Clinton Foundation ... and she isn't the epitome of liberal elitism?
Bernie Sanders is a progressive.
The pragmatism part depends on what you think is good and necessary for working class Americans. Aiming high to get something so necessary like single-payer health care is very pragmatic if you are being squeezed again by rising ACA insurance premiums. One is not an elitist when advocating for breaking up banks or making the income inequality issue the number one topic of your campaign.
The genesis of this post surely comes from the sting of Clinton's rightward drift and is an effort to try and spin Hillary as something she just isn't -- a progressive -- she is barely a liberal at best.
Ironically 'liberal elitist' is already the sobriquet applied by Repuglicans to Clinton ... and it fits. Progressive pragmatist is Bernie Sanders and is what Democrats need in a nominee for President if we are to motivate young people and working Americans to throw the Repuglicans out of Congress and keep the White House.
MeNMyVolt
(1,095 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)And please don't start the usual bullshit about Bernie being as hawkish as Clinton. Anyone who believes that is either ignorant or stupid or dishonest. Clinton has consistently demonstrated bad judgment on issues of war. She is not cut out to be CIC.
artislife
(9,497 posts)...
The world doesn't have time for incremental anymore. We have kicked the can and now we have no more road.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)than Clinton. Other than gun control, what issue is Clinton "progressive" as compared to Sanders?
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)lists of elites, look at Hillary's financial backers.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)To give proof to all the shit they have accused us of for decades. That really pisses me off, actually. He is not a Democrat, but he will brand us all as the socialists they like to believe we are. As the polls show, most Dems do not support him. The last thing we need to do is prove the cons right. It took us decades to remove the stain of McGovern.
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)By the way, McGovern was a Democrat. inconsistent much?
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)"Proud to be part of the stain of McGovern"
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)This place hasn't been a place to support actual Democrats in years. McGovern was a disaster for Dems and no real Dem is in a rush to duplicate it.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)That great man was the conscience of a nation and a party. But I guess knowing the difference from right and wrong just ain't cool anymore.
As a senator, McGovern wrote legislation to initiate the food stamp program, school lunch program and the supplemental food assistance to women and children (WIC). Later, as a U.N. ambassador, he recruited his former political rival-turned-friend, Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kansas), to sponsor an international school lunch program to feed the hungry children in less economically developed nations. Both men were honored with the prestigious World Food Prize in 2008.
Despite humiliating defeat, and being the target of many a political commentary over the years, McGovern never lost his wry wit, intellectual fervor or moral compassion. Rooted in his Christian faith, he spoke prophetically against war, not only in Vietnam, but also Iraq and Afghanistan. He championed programs for the poor and the marginalized. He forgave his political enemies, even honoring former President and Mrs. Nixon by attending their funerals. He was awarded America's highest honor, the Medal of Freedom, by President Bill Clinton.
"Mr. McGovern, when you go to meet your Maker and he asks, 'Did you feed the hungry?' You can say, 'I did.'"
-- Pope John XXIII
http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/george-mcgovern-champion-of-the-hungry
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And that doesn't appear to bother his supporters. Inconsistent much?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Besides the dems are too right wing.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Jesus Himself could run against Clinton and you find things to demonize him for.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)- I loathe that fact that he has been paid millions as a senator and done nothing
- I loathe that he bills himself as a champion of LGBT rights when I KNOW he didn't do jack shit to help us
- I loathe that he thinks women fantasize about rape and his supporters insist we pretend he never said that (and will hide any post that mentions facts about it) http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/bernie-sanders-1972-essay-rape-fantasy-surfaces-article-1.2240379
- I loathe his indifference and ignorance about AA issues
- I loathe his proposals he knows can never pass, but uses to pander to middle class white people
- I loathe his pro gun votes, especially every time we have a new mass murder like today
- I loathe the way his supporters smear Dems 24/7/365 on a GD DEM website that was created to support Dems
And that is just a start. I wouldn't vote for him if you held a gun to my head. Which is exactly my position on voting for rethugs.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Not even worth pointing out the mischaracterizations in that litany....
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Or the vote of any real Dem, in my opinion. For the exact reasons I stated. IMO his candidacy and support represent the rank elitism of the fringe of the party that have never helped us accomplish anything.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)Those who are true Dems do not gratuitously smear other Dems, do not compare them to Dick Cheney (the most contemptible of all living Americans, IMHO), and do not tell those of us who prefer other excellent Dem candidates that we are wrong - especially when many of us have been literally fighting in the political trenches longer than some of them have even been alive.
For the Dick Cheney reference, please see this: http://www.salon.com/2015/12/02/i_wouldnt_vote_for_dick_cheney_so_i_wont_vote_for_hillary_clinton_an_unrepentant_only_sanders_voters_fires_back_at_critics/
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Clinton is an opportunist. And as first lady, she blew the chance to get things done because it had to be her way or the highway.
And opoortunism is not always progressive, because it is inherently unprincipled.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But suddenly decided he should run for the Dem nomination is not an opportunist? Thanks for the best laugh of the night. That is really rich.
Let's be real. Bernie is the ultimate opportunist. They don't come any bigger in politics.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)principled positions when the Democratic party went too far to the right (beyond the centre). Now that there is a chance to push the Democratic Party back to the left, he's willing to push with all the Democrats who want to make that happen.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts) AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Yet constantly attacks from the right. A total lack of self awareness.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Purity is like virginity: nice idea, but practically untenable.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Always, in politics, you build upon what comes before. It's all well and good if you've got a solid foundation, but even if it's a pile of shit you've got to deal with it. It can't be swept away and ignored.
Sanders supporters require that we sweep away & ignore everything that has come before.
The reason Clinton is leading every other candidate in the polls and the reason she will beat Sanders & win the WH is the same reason the Dems will regain Congress along with her - she's been planning this for years, gathering support where it matters.
OTOH Bernie seems to have decided to run for President on the spur of the moment.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Fuck the right wing congress, do everything by executive order and hash it out in the courts.
The three branches all have equal power. Just bypass congress.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)You begin from a position of having conceded every position of decency and morality and then call that defeatism 'compromise' and 'pragmatism'.
People oppose fracking because they don't care about freezing Eastern Europeans? What a crock of shit, the progressive position is to ask how we can move the west and Russia back from their current standoff and create a genuinely open and mutually beneficial relationship. Instead we get this neo-cold war crap where we have to see Russia as the evil empire again, and even liberals are supposed to want to create a situation where Russia loses its market for one of its major exports. So tell me my 'pragmatically progressive' friend, what exactly do you think Russia is going to do if they are forced into a corner where a huge part of their GDP is suddenly threatened? Realistically, how would you expect them to react?
That's not to say that we should just kiss Russia's ass, but then again Russia needs the west as much as the west needs Russia. There are huge moves that could be made to bring that relationship back on track, but its going to have to start with both sides accepting that the other has needs of their own. Treat them like the enemy, and they will be the enemy.
On every issue we see this contemptible neo-liberal blindness. We can't push for universal healthcare because 'oh, but we'll never win congress back, so how could it ever pass?!'. Well if you offer something people actually want, and stop talking out of both sides of your mouth, then we'll win the damn congress back, gerrymandering or no gerrymandering.
All your positions demand that we compromise our morality and ethics to find some pathetic losing position that's not quite as bad as the other possible losing position. Enough already. There are genuinely pragmatic solutions to all our problems, but they require you to throw away your neo-lib rule book and stop assuming that the world can only work in a single way. If you're losing the game, stop and ask yourself why you're playing by someone elses rules in the first place.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It's fine with me if you want to value the warm fuzzies over achieving liberal objectives. As long as you get out of the way and don't become an obstacle. But that's what happens in real life. Liberal elites prevent the agenda from being accomplished. IMO.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Who embrace corporatism, betray progressive values at every turn, and sell out the heart of the party for a false vision of electability. Your wing of the party has no future, and will achieve nothing more than to delay the very things you pretend to care about. Enjoy your temporary reign, it won't last long.
Turn CO Blue
(4,221 posts)of thinking.
Hillary Clinton and her juggernaut (as they often called in on the Obama campaign phone calls) WAS the pragmatic choice.
I worked for his campaign 20-25 hours a week - ON TOP of my regular 45 hour/week job - because I HOPED, not because I was feeling pragmatic.
Pragmatism has to be balanced with ideals and optimism -- AS WE DID IN CHOOSING OBAMA over Hillary the first time out -- or else that philosophy is simple excuse for hopeless people who gave up on the dream.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)But this much I do. I might have also added that pragmatism must also have limits beyond which one will not compromise.
Turn CO Blue
(4,221 posts)I have posted like 15 comments in the last five years. Might have me confused with someone else, maybe?
on edit: Looking at the last week, that is an exaggeration. I did start commenting the last week or so, and I did start a thread - so maybe have commented more like 40 times in the last 6-7 years. That would mean you have an excellent memory LOL (just kidding). There was a very long period of time, like 3-4 years, didn't even comment at all - at all.
And I have started maybe 10 threads in 10 years.
I have hit the alert button one single time on a Freeper.
I have never had a hide.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Didn't have my glasses on and I screwed up the author.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Another example from DU ... the cheering the possibility of going over the fiscal cliff ... shutting down government hurting those depending on given mentioned for food and shelter ... because, while the .1% saw an increase in taxes, the wealthy ($500k earners) got to keep the bush tax counts ... nevermind, so did everyone else.
Gothmog
(145,225 posts)I like Sanders and according to that online quiz/test, I am closer to Sanders' positions than to Clinton. However, I live in the real world and I do not believe that Sanders is viable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars. I keep asking for an explanation and have yet to see anything that causes me to believe that Sanders would be viable. I remember 1972 election and Sanders reminds me too much of McGovern
For me, one of my key issues is control of the SCOTUS and having a candidate who can not win in the general makes no sense. The next POTUS may get to control the direction of the SCOTUS for a generation
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)He is the new McGovern. I wonder if anyone remembers how far that set the Dem party back? Doesn't seem so. As a refresher his campaign branded the whole party as a bunch of commie loving hippies. Not anxious for a redo on that.
Gothmog
(145,225 posts)I remember well what happen. If not for Watergate, the Democratic Party was doomed for a long time
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I think the primary difference that many people that you so generously label as "elites" (how pragmatic of you) comes down to the triangulation problem. Hillary and Bill DID "throw issues under the bus". That's how we got DADT and DOMA, not to mention welfare "reform" and "the end of big government as we know it". It's voting FOR the Iraq war before then being AGAINST the Iraq war, but then trying to work out a deal to EXTEND our stay in Iraq, beyond the SOFA. Altough there are "purists", the vast majority of those who oppose Hillary based upon a lack of "liberal" credentials traces to this. This isn't pragmatism, it's playing both sides against the middle.
Prism
(5,815 posts)What a weird freakin' thread!
Like, even minor cursory facts of our history, completely unknown.
And the straight people rushing in with the high fives.
LOL. Seriously. LOL.
sonofspy777
(360 posts)is the flip-flopping of her positions to match those
of Bernie Sanders.
Srsly.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I appreciate the extra kick.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Basically, you might have a point but you absolutely have the use of "liberal" (an ideology of political economics that explicitly embraces capitalism and free markets as pathways to a better society for all inhabitants) switched with "progressive" (a sociopolitical ideology that takes no stance on economic systems but advocates for the advancement of social and civil liberties towards a more-egalitarian society as being the highest ideal.)
Hillary by her own words is not a progressive, but is definitely a liberal. Is Hillary a pragmatic liberal? You make a strong argument for it. It's a sound description of her supporters...both the ones I can tolerate and the ones I despise.
Bernie is by-definition not a liberal (no Democratic Socialist is), but certainly a progressive. Is he an idealistic progressive? Yes, I don't think there's any doubt about that in anybody's mind. Nor should there be much question about most of his supporters.
Clarity of labels matters because words matter. What is more telling is that you clearly have no better idea of what a liberal is than all those anti-capitalists claiming to be liberals when they are progressives and all those social-moderates like Hillary who want to claim to be progressives when they are liberals, but not progressives. The terms are not interchangeable and Democrats and others on the left not understanding the differences is a large part of why Republicans were able to damn so many Democratic labels. The terms are not interchangeable, they're not even synonyms.
I may not like Hillary, but I have to respect her for knowing enough to know what "progressives" and "liberals" are and to know which one she is and which one she is not.
