Suddenly this feels relevant again: Being Right while Being Wrong

[Selwynn]

Being "Right" while Being Wrong
by Selwynn

A while back I felt like I learned a very important life lesson in my personal life: being right is not necessarily synonymous with doing the right thing.

It is a lesson that I wish Left America could learn. Too many times my progessive friends and collegues will bitterly critcize neo-conservatives for how they act towards those they disagree with, while excusing identical behavior from our own camp. Time and time again I encounter this double standard where progressives lash out with great disgust and rancor against conservatives who speak hatefully or advocate viscious or outlandish things, and then say and do things just as hateful or outlandish.

• people on the right will mock and make fun of an opponents physical appearance or mannerisms and the left errupts with cries of outrage and disgust. Then the left will do the exact same thing to Rush Limbaugh, George Bush, or other conservatives in the political spotlight.
  
• People on the right promote disrupting behavior and harassment of those who disagree with them, and the left calls them haters of democracy - then proceeds to advocate the same thing.
  
• People on the left call the right hateful and meanspirited and discriminatory, and then proceeds to mock the south in a discriminatory fashion, speak candidely and in explicit terms of its hate for people on the right, etc.
  

Why does this hypocrisys exist on all sides? If progessive ideas are truly better and just, shouldn't progessives reflect a genuinely different attitude and act in radically different ways? Why then does the left and the right so frequently act exactly alike in terms of attitude and actions?

The Polarization of the Nation
I believe the first part of the anwer has to do with the current political climate. Neo-conservatives are intense and fanatical in their crusade to drive this nation closer and closer to fascism. I believe they feel so close to their goals that their true colors shine through with greater clarity. The neo-conservative agenda does not truly believe in freedom, in disssent, in a plurality of views, and as such it treats all who do not support that agenda as an "enemy."

However, many progressives also seem to treat all who do not support their agenda as an enemy, though for very different reasons. Progressives have been "on the run" for many years in this country, and for the last for years have have truly been under seige. Progressives are watching their country slip further and further away from the vestiges of true democracy, and are therefore on the extreme defensive. I believe that frustration and fear leads to further polarization in politics, as well as extremely bitter and hostile feelings from both sides. Very little of that can be helped.

The Myth that Civility Equals Passivity
What concerns me more than the current climate of polarization are the number of progressive voices advocating a real change in ideology, away from critical reasoning and intellectual engagement of the facts to emotionalistic sensationalism and anger turned into action. The phrase heard frequently these days in progressive camps is "we tried to be reasonable and look where that's gotten us! It's time to fight back." Setting the side the fact that this sentement wrongly presumes that the best way to "fight" back is with the weapons of a now-stumbling now-failing neo-conservative administration, the fact remains that this idea that now the progressive left must "embrace hate" and "fight back" and "fight fire with fire" and "beat them at their own game" is nothing short of ridiculous.

This notion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding that equates civility and sophistication with passivity. Too many people today choose the quick and easy way and mistake hatred and rage for courage and resistance to tyranny. Too many people believe that its OK to spew venom and cynicism and revel in the suffering of others because "we are right." But it is not possible to be"right" and embrace those attitudes. We must stand for something other than what the neo-conservative right demonstrates. The "left" isn't correct by default. "It" is only correct insofar as it practices the principles it preaches, not just when its difficult, but when its hard.

The Lack of Ideological Vision
One of the things that concerns me most deeply today is the lack of ideological vision on the political progressive left. Progressive vision and a sense of direction for the future have been supbordinated and sacrificed to a simple game: hate your opponents. Instead of boldy proclaiming new ideas and fresh visions and expressing a clear and consistent platform and vision for America, the political progressive left has devoted all of its time to criticism and mockary of the right. It leaves ordinary people desparately asking the question, "what are you actually for?"

They way we can take back the country for the causes of good and justice is to actually stand for good and just things, not just stand against "the other guy" becuase he's the other guy. They way you bring entice people to support is by feeding what they are hungry for: actual just and moral leadership, that reflects a clear and honest agenda based on deep seeded moral convictions about justice and civil society and humanitarian leadership. Right now the entire left - moderates, democrats, progressives, socialists - are suffering from a crisis of vision wherein no one knows what they are really for in any serious and organized way, but everyone knows what they are against. So the left does a lot of yelling, complaining, criticizing and attacking without being able to express any idealistic vision for moving our country forward in a positive and just direction.

Susbstiting "Winning" with "Governing"
Why is there such a lack of vision on the left? Because the left, namely the Democratic Party leadership in this case, has been willing to care more about "winning" at any cost than about being right, standing for what's right, and committing to principles whether they were commonly thought to be "winning" principles or not. The attitude in the current political climate is "do whatever it takes to get elected, say anything, do anything, be for nothing, just win!" But I believe that this is the number one reason why democrats and progressives will ultimately lose more than they will win. In the short term you can win by standing for nothing. But in the long run, you accomplish nothing.

We need to return to a time where there was actaul honest to god conviction behind ideas. A place in time where we can say "I would rather stand for what I believe to be right and lose the election than win the election by compromising on what I believe to be right." Because while American people don't usually say it, I believe that people are starving for actual leadership from people who they can believe in, who represent integrity and sincerity, who are committed to what they believe to be right whether it is easy or hard, popular or not, good politics or not. I believe the only way you really "win" in the long term is by caring more about doing what is right than about winning. And I haven't given up on the possibility that one can both be rigth and win at the same time.

Unless people of all stripes on the left come to understand that being "right" (i.e. on the right side of the political spectrum) is not synonymous with doing the right thing, I believe positive meaningful change will be hard to come by. Real and significant change for the direction of this country requires a political force that doesn't act exactly like the dominant power, doesn't sacrifice ideological conviction for convenience, doesn't mistake hatred with courgae, and doesnt' care more about a career when than for standing for what is right.

[B. P. R. D.]

1. Nice Stereotype

"One of the things that concerns me most deeply today is the lack of ideological vision on the political progressive left. Progressive vision and a sense of direction for the future have been supbordinated and sacrificed to a simple game: hate your opponents. Instead of boldy proclaiming new ideas and fresh visions and expressing a clear and consistent platform and vision for America, the political progressive left has devoted all of its time to criticism and mockary of the right. It leaves ordinary people desparately asking the question, "what are you actually for?"

"Democrats have no ideas, while Republicans have bad ideas."

That is exactly what you are saying isn't it?

[Selwynn]

2. No, what I am saying is exactly what I said.

What I am saying is that I think that it is becoming more important to hate the other guys than it is to think about what we are for. That's not the same thing as saying we are for nothing. It is however what you saw at the RNC - the convention so many around here are calling so "successful" and saying "we should have been more like that."

I am talking about the subordination of what we are for to the hating of our opponents - and the trend in ALL of politics to care more about beating the other guy that for standing for what is right, even if it means you lose.

My fellow progressive colleges seem to be the ones most enamored with the idea that we should take on all the weapons of our opponents and get just as hateful and nasty as they. It is sad to me because I believe progressives, whether progressive democrats or progressives outside the party, have the potential to have the clearest vision of what needs to be done in America, but so often I feel like there is a real push to head in a direction of the "politics of personal destruction" and use all the tools that the republicans brought to the political scene in the 90s. I think that is a huge mistake. I think we need to talk about political disarmament, NOT an arms race! :)

So no, I would say that my thoughts on this matter are a little more nuanced than your one sentence sum-up, or at least I should say, I wanted them to be. But clearly I didn't do a good enough job expressing that.

[Malva Zebrina]

3. It is really a very nice essay

If someone came into my home, told lies about my family, beat up my children, indeed, may have even killed one, I would fight them to the death using their own methods. I would aim my gun straight at their heart. I would have NO compunctions about ding so

We are in a battle here for literally, life and death, I believe. Our soldiers are being killed, we have killed so many thousands of innocent civilian who did nothing to us, and, by all intents and purposes, it is likely that if Bush is elected, there will be more of the same-- a draft is looming. Make no mistake about it--if he is elected the very next day after he is sworn in, he will go back to his fascist, bullying arrogant stance and declare war on the world--there is nothing to stop him---nothing

This is MY government--We ARE the government. If we see screw ups happening in the Kerry campaign we have a right to bring it to attention--WE the people are the government and we PAY all of those who take an oath to defend our consitution.

That is how I see this election and although normally a person willing to look at many sides, the situtation now demands more than simple altruism.

[Selwynn]

5. I wouldn't sacrifice what I believe in, for anyone

You're ignoring the fact that Civility <> passivity. I believe we can both win and be right.

A better analogy is this, if someone came to my home while I was gone and raped my wife, I would not go to their home and rape his wife in return. That weakens me, that corrupts my own life. Now, I would want him brought to justice, and of course I would be furious and hurt (I've had a little experience with this) - but that doesn't mean that vengeance would be right, nor does it mean that becoming the very thing that I hate, the very thing that is so evil, is right. That is only destructive.

Again, you are making an argument that basically claims to not act like neo-conservatives is to do nothing, and I strongly disagree with that. Civility does not equal passivity. If I wanted to vote for hate-filled, disingenuous bullshit, I would vote Republican. If that's what the Democratic party wants to become then they can do it without me.

[Malva Zebrina]

8. A mother will kill to protect her children from being killed

when accosted and up against imminent danger. A woman being raped or on the verge of being raped will also try to kill her attacker if she has the means at hand to do so. I certainly would not hesitate for a minute to do so and to do the same if my children were in danger of being attacked and killed. Hell hath no fury like a woman protecting her babies. History is full of examples.

Within the past three and half years what HAS worked to make Bush change his insane policies? Very little, but I can think of two

He has not followed through on his threats to N. Korea as a member of his famous axis of evil and we know why--Korea, perceiving itself as vulnerable to an invasion, beating it's chest,spitting hellfire, threatened with acquisiton of a nuclear weapon-- Bush=nothing more except to call someone a pygmy.

Another I can think of--the Chinese won when they would not back down re the spy plane crash. Bush put his tail between his legs and limped off after all his blustering.

My argument is that if Bush gets elected, it is a matter of self defense because he most certainly will use our children as his pawns and put them in harm's way; their very lives are at stake for nothing but his madness.

We need to beat our chests, threaten, expose him and his lies every one of them,get mad, make him back down and wax triumphant, loudly to the world when he does. In order to protect our children, we cannot afford to do unto others as you would have them do unto you-it does not work with people who are ruthless barbarians with a pre-emptive attack mindset.For one thing, you could be dead. For another thing, before you get ready to do unto him nice things, he has already done unto you and killed our children in the process.

I would kick, bite, scratch and scream and tell any egregious lie to protect my children.

[Selwynn]

9. As I said, I believe my analogy is more appropriate.

[calimary]

7. Damn straight - "the situation now demands more than simple altruism."

But but but we have to take the high road...

Even if the high road leads straight off a cliff?

NO! NO! NO!

NO! SOME MORE!

I'm SICK of taking the high road. I'm SICK of being told that if we fight back hard, or fight dirty, or turn their own dirt and mudslinging against them to win a few cheap points - that we become no better than they are.

Well, let's consider what "they" are: WINNERS. CONSISTENT WINNERS.

I want to win. I want to be on the side that wins. First, last, and ONLY, WE NEED TO WIN. PERIOD. END OF SENTENCE.

After we WIN, THEN we can redefine the agenda, and the terms of the debate. And the method of battle.

But first, we've got to WIN!

YES. I actually DO want to be like them. Because the shit they pull actually WINS ELECTIONS. And that's the whole point, is it not? Nice guys, in politics, NEVER win. But they DO make awfully nice doormats. It sounds like you want to be laughed at, scorned, and further marginalized for the next four years, and have "LOSER" tattooed on your forehead. Maybe the Kerry-ites do, too.

I DO NOT.

[rucky]

4. I mostly agree...

but I think progressives are mostly well-meaning and have been seriously thrown off-track by the radical neoconservative blindsighting we've been hit with. On the Maslow chart, we are in survival mode right now, and there will be some biting and clawing for us to stay alive. So I understand the behavior and am a bit more forgiving of it.

Strategically, however, I think we should stay on the high road, because it is obvious that the GOP wants to drag us into the gutter - that kind of fight is closer to their leaders' nature - not our leaders (the people we choose to admire, who set the tone for the nation and represent the traits that we value as a culture). The challenge facing us is this: once we get back into a position where we can actually participate in shaping policy, will we be able to get back on track as to our ideals? Will a battle as heated as the one we're in the middle of leave a bitter aftertaste - a cycle of revenge - or will we proceed with progress? I have a bit more confidence that the progressive philosophy will withstand even the biggest trials - which is what we're facing now. Kerry is looking, which is why he's running the campaign he is running. If we're dragged into the gutter, we will completely lose our moral compass, and what you fear, Selwynn, would be quite likely to happen. As long as Kerry sets the example, I think we'll be okay - despite all the frustrations caused by the GOP and media. Kerry is a class act.

[B. P. R. D.]

6. Stop The Circular Firing Squad.

Your argument is pointless and makes no sense. You claim progressives are the ones that want to attack Republicans instead of standing for something? Don't moderates want the same thing? Or are most Democrats weak-kneed and not fighting back? Or are they fighting but the media isn't reporting it? Do progressives want Kerry to win at all costs? I thought progressives didn't think Kerry stood for anything? Or are progressives expecting the perfect candidate that doesn't exist and don't support Kerry? Weren't the moderates the ones who changed positions at the drop of a hat? Or do they have a realistic plan for winning? Did Kerry inspire during the convention because he didn't go negative? Would going negative have helped or hurt?

The above paragraph is nonsense. It is stupid to fight each other over perceptions. We all Democrats, ok? I could write an essay blaming moderates, progressives, or fringe leftists for anything, but it wouldn't make it true. Do you understand now?

[Selwynn]

10. You chose to ignore my response to you above

That's you're choice.

You are getting hung up on the fact that I speak of progressives. I do so because that's what I consider myself to be. My actual point however, was that adopting the politics of hate and destruction in the name of winning is a mistake.

That was the whole point if you bothered to read anything other than one paragraph. I go on to explain that in even more detail to your first response, but apparently that wasn't good enough. I feel like I've more than explained myself clearly the first time you posted on this thread, and I don't really think I need to do any more.