"The hard left"... you know what is so damn comical about this statement?

[wyldwolf]

179. I know I'm late for this thread. I'll comment.

When I've used the term 'hard left' I was using it as a pejorative but I wasn't necessarily speaking in terms of policy positions or ideology. MOST people on DU agree on about 96% of issues so there really isn't any 'far left' or 'conservative' Democrats on board here. To me, 'hard left' has always meant firmness or rigidness in policy - an unwillingness to compromise or bend. It's the stance that the Democratic party SHOULD do A,B, or C and any variation is unacceptable.

There are times - many times - when that is commendable. Issues like civil rights and economic justice should never be compromised on. On those rare occasions in recent years when Democrats have held the entire congress and the Presidency there is no good reason why more liberal legislation wasn't passed - especially since those policies are much more often than not supported by a large percentage (or majority) of the American people.

But then we have those times when we only have the Senate or the House or the Presidency or some combination where it isn't possible for us to have our way. That's when this rigidness - this 'hard left' mentality - can be a detriment. No one likes to compromise when she believes she is correct but sometimes when you're not in a position to have your way you have to give a little up to get a little of what you want. Now we can argue all day how much is too much to compromise on BUT threatening withhold votes for Democrats or promising to work against Democrats in a political environment where any given candidate simply cannot deliver the liberal brass ring is dangerous.

And that's my opinion.

Here is another about 'the hard left.' There is a lot of outspoken liberals who have a misguided and skewed view of what the Democratic party's history is. They speak of the progressive movement as the only 'true Democrats' or 'traditional Democrats' never realizing or believing they have much more in common with Henry Wallace and other third party candidates than FDR/Truman/Kennedy. They create these really bizarre narratives to support their world view. And I'm sorry if that's offensive to anyone but there have been some really crackpot theories here about Democratic wins and losses that comes from just being human and wanting history to support their beliefs. I feel compelled to point out the follies of those when it happens as do many people on DU.

So I'll close with this. After the 2008 Democratic primaries, I was very disgusted with the way I, we, you - A LOT of us acted in the eventual nomination of Barack Obama. I vowed to try and stay out of such intra-party scuffles in the future. If we have a 2016 primary race, I'm only going to post good things about the candidates and defend all of them if an attack seems over the top or patently false.

I'm also done using pejorative labels to paint a large segment of the left.