Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: IMPORTANT.... From Howard Dean [View all]NNadir
(37,188 posts)119. Where would Frederick Douglass have fit on this spectrum? In general, I agree with Dr. Dean but...
...even as a person who has no tolerance with say, Michael Moore and Molly Ivins (in 2000), and even worse, Susan Sarandon in 2016, all three having been total assholes with respect to their times, I do believe that some things are non-negotiable.
In Frederick Douglass's case, he supported Abraham Lincoln in 1860, but agitated against Lincoln's policies as President (with respect to Slavery) up until 1863.
Douglass and Lincoln ultimately became friends, but only after Lincoln changed, not because Douglass changed.
Douglass said of Lincoln, "Lincoln is the first white man I ever spent an hour with who did not remind me I was a Negro.
Speaking of Lincoln after his death, Douglass said...
I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.
Frederick Douglass one one member of the triumvirate who saved the United States from itself, Lincoln in the political sphere, U.S. Grant in the military sphere, and Douglass in the all important moral sphere.
I think our modern Democrats could learn from that great American of the past, Douglass.
More on Douglass's relationship with Lincoln is here: Lincoln comtemporary, Frederick Douglass
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
148 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
He's right. Purism is self-satisfying. Pragmatism helps other people.
Bernardo de La Paz
Aug 2017
#27
I'd agree with this. Governing is about compromise, and winning elections is about pragmatism.
Honeycombe8
Aug 2017
#46
By golly, you're right! He's not pure enough for me to listen to him, either.
Midnight Writer
Aug 2017
#83
But there are few purists. This is just an "enlightened" way to say STFU to critics
aikoaiko
Aug 2017
#101
Pragmatism is good. But this whole "progressive purists" argument is phony baloney
KPN
Aug 2017
#117
Now is a good time for those discussions, the "battle" you refer to.
Bernardo de La Paz
Aug 2017
#120
All the Washington politicians are in the pockets of ins. and pharma. Incl. Obama.
Honeycombe8
Aug 2017
#48
You just made my point. The Democrats wouldn't have removed that provision, you say.
Honeycombe8
Aug 2017
#108
He also said that most of this "division" is a small, but loud, group of people
progressoid
Aug 2017
#75
Now you know that the southern Democrats then are the extreme Republicans now. nt
Honeycombe8
Aug 2017
#49
The "what if" game is hard to play and nobody knows what would have happened anyway
marylandblue
Aug 2017
#52
Very understandable. It's been interesting to see Gore on TV so much with his new movie coming
R B Garr
Aug 2017
#145
Judy would hang Howard by his toes from a Vermont maple tree if he ran for national office again
DFW
Aug 2017
#146
While he might be right, calling Dems "whiny" is akin to Hillary's "deplorables" comment.
Vinca
Aug 2017
#7
any Trump voter that STILL supports him is an A grade Deplorable as far as I'm concerned
LiberalLovinLug
Aug 2017
#82
I agree that purity tests could easily make Dems a permanent minority ....
CaptainTruth
Aug 2017
#15
"I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" was a better quote from him.
Gore1FL
Aug 2017
#21
He is obviously correct. Many have said this one way or another. None of this is rocket science. nt
DoodAbides
Aug 2017
#26
He wouldn't be talking about single payer for all if the left didn't push for it, hard.
femmedem
Aug 2017
#44
Memo to my fave, Dr. Dean: When one writes, one can write correct and eschew "gonna" and other
WinkyDink
Aug 2017
#47
#1 I don't know what he is referring to. #2 I question whether this really comes from Howard Dean!
TryLogic
Aug 2017
#72
Howard Dean is exactly right. People who use their voting power to hurt others are not on our side.
BzaDem
Aug 2017
#84
He did not say that. He said that it was a relatively small number of people and that the media
janx
Aug 2017
#140
Dean is right. The proof is those who are attacking him in some of these comments,
Nitram
Aug 2017
#112