Reply #36: Thanks for the thoughtful reply

[moggie12]

Whenever I see one of your posts, I always read them -- they are always well-reasoned and extremely well-written and, best of all, passionate (and that's what we could use, more passion). I rarely agree with all of what you say -- since I am a more moderate, centrist type of Democrat -- but I find myself agreeing with your basic point most times.

I come at politics from an extremely cynical, pragmatic perspective (worked in local govt for 15+ years and have tire tracks on my head from being rolled over while trying to do the "right thing"). Over the years I've gotten very interested in how politicians "sell themselves" by framing issues certain ways: Appealing to voters' worldviews, prejudices, etc. to convince voters they're "on their side".

That's why the DLC/Progressive debate is so interesting to me. I think that if the Progressive camp better understood why the DLC camp came into being and became so powerful, they would be better able to fight them and advance their cause. The Vietnam War protest backlash is one issue that, in my opinion, underlies the power shift. You and I obviously disagree as to how violent the Vietnam protest were back then, although we both seem to agree that they had a long-term effect on political discourse. Somewhere between your view that the most of it was an "urban myth" and the way the RW and media portray it, is an issue that needs to be better understood, particularly by today's Iraq/Bush protesters. I cringed yesterday when I saw a picture on DU of someone burning the flag at the Inaug protest. And where was the picture? On Free Republic's website!! Deja vu all over again. The RW latches on to this kind of visual "anti-Americanism" to manipulate mass opinion. Large numbers of protesters chanting, "Fu** Bush! Fu** Bush" does nothing to help the anti Iraq War cause -- it only alienates vast numbers of more moderate-temperament Americans. Worse, they took away from the impact of the protesters that were expressing their views in a more constructive, less obnoxious way. Some DUers apparently felt it was great that the curses could be heard at the grandstand. Not me. I don't recall the protests led by MLK involving hurling epithets and burning flags. He accomplished so much because he shamed America into looking at the truth by protesting in a non-violent, morally-based, courageous way, by his non-violence highlighting the violence of his opponents. In my opinion, some of what went on yesterday just repeats the mistakes made by Vietnam-era protesters. They are not going to be seen as the "conscience of America" if they take actions that only guarantee that most Americans dismiss them. It's a shame, too, because I bet the number of MLK-type protesters out there yesterday outnumbered those who thought cursing at Bush would somehow have a positive effect.