Why liberals lose

[Mortos]

Last night on a right wing website, another thread devolved into personal attacks of which I was both victim and aggressor. Thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that the reason liberals lose is that we are unable to band together like right wingers. I was attacked by the right wing talk show host, again, and again his compatriots rushed to his defense, which I expected, while the liberals on this board (my philosophical brothers in arms), rushed, not to my defense, but to attack me for defending myself.

This is typical of our political voices on a grander scale. While right wingers speak with one voice, instigate devastating (though untruthful) personal attacks, use the echo chamber of the media to repeat hints, rumor and innuendo until it is accepted in the general population as truth, never apologize, never surrender and never admit defeat; liberals can't wait to turn on their own and criticize, condemn, withdraw support, apologize and beg for forgiveness. No wonder we are looked upon as weak.

The truth is right wing talk show hosts and those like them are doing irreparable damage to our country by siding with an ever secretive and domineering government. They truly wish for one party rule and follow a scorched earth policy to achieve it. They gleefully destroy opponents utilizing any means necessary and liberals help them achieve their goal by turning on each other and infighting while they take more control and power.

Those who dare stand up to the bullies of the right are beaten down by the sycophants who support them but also the people within their the same idealogical arena who can't wait to criticize one of their own with the idea that placating evil will somehow defeat it. We have become the battered wives of politics; apologizing for getting smacked by the abusers, because we shouldn't have angered them, while our family members secretly wonder what we did to deserve it or rush to defend the abuser.

"We are better than that", is the rallying cry of the placators. "We need to take the high ground", they shout while the right wingers dig holes under them and laugh as they fall. If we continue to take the high ground we will eventually fall off a cliff. We must challenge the wrongheaded ideas of the right and we must use harsh language and tactics to do it.

We have seen it happen time and time again on the national and local scene. We can't wait to tear down our candidates over any flaw, actual or perceived, and then moan and whine about losing. We are the greatest contributors to our loss of political standing. We allow the right to define, debase and, ultimately, destroy us and we do so without so much as a peep in protest.

The right wing of this country do not want to compromise, they do not want to work together; they want to destroy liberal philosophies and install their own bastardized brand of theocratical christian corporatism. The danger we face from corporations and the rich monopolizing and defining our system of government is greater than any threat from middle eastern terrorists.

In my opinion, there is not much difference between hard core right wing fundamentalists and hard core right wing muslims. They both want to install their version of religion based government wherein dissension is not tolerated and one religious view dominates and controls the masses.

Liberals should be ashamed of themselves for failing to fight the right wing menace with all the tenacity and anger it deserves. If you can't or won't fight, then don't turn on those who do. At least be an equal opportunity pacifist and refuse to fight those who fight your battles for you.

Right wingers don't win because they are have better ideas (they don't unless you are rich or a corporation) or even because more people support them (the majority of Americans support liberal ideas like higher minimum wage, reproductive rights, social security, conservation, etc), they win because liberals can't stop beating themselves up long enough to concentrate on the real enemy.

By: Steven J. Vincent
Pissed off liberal

[IrateCitizen]

1. The reason that modern-day liberals lose...

... is simply that they are pussies. And I mean that with all seriousness, with little concern for the flames that will follow.

Modern-day liberalism is built around the preconceived notions of advanced capitalism, combined with an almost tyrannical call for inoffensive multiculturalism (as in, God forbid you say anything that might offend someone else, regardless of how right the essence of what you say might be) and a smattering of single-issue politics. All in all, it's a losing proposition. You simply cannot compete with the agenda of conservatism while embracing the system that they seek to advance through a constructed reality.

The Frankfurt School (i.e. Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse) had it right by expanding Marx's theories from the economic and into the social realm. It is only by challenging directly the false assumptions upon which our reality is constructed that real change can be affected -- anything else is certain to do only one thing, and that is perpetuate the status quo. Perhaps that also explains why Democrats -- even liberal Democrats -- go after Greens and Socialist with so much more zeal than they do Republicans, and why centrists go after liberals in the same fashion. Perhaps it is because the one thing that people fear more than anything is change, and they will always react more violently against less conservative elements than themselves.

By: Christopher Harrison
A Critical Marxist who seeks to view the world as it truly IS, rather than through the lenses of reality constructed for us.

[wtmusic]

2. The "constructed reality" you mention is succeeding admirably

and will continue to succeed. Liberals retreating with their tails between their legs (after losing a very, very close election) and bemoaning why "liberals lose" is what makes it difficult for liberalism to succeed. They give up.

Feel free to make whatever offensive multiculturalist remarks you wish, reflecting whatever "essence" you believe exists. If you want a sure recipe for liberal politicians to fail, ask them to do the same.

[IrateCitizen]

5. Regarding "constructed reality"...

You say that this "constructed reality" is succeeding admirably. Is it really? We've exhausted some 60% of the world's ecological principle, according to the UN millenial working group report. The global population has reached a point perilously close to causing ecosystems to collapse. People in "developing nations" are experiencing greater poverty (as in access to food) than they were when they lived largely subsistence lifestyles -- to the point that some 2 billion of the world's people live on less than $2 per day while having no means to maintain their own subsistence anymore. Polar ice caps are melting at an increasing pace, topsoil is thinning, fresh water supplies are disappearing.... and you call this "admirable success"???

The very notion of "externalities" inherent in classical economics is an example of this "constructed reality". Pollution is not considered by economists, but written off as an "externality". But this "externality" has real consequences, and real costs. It represents a very deep flaw within the entire system. But rather than acknowledge this flaw, it is written off as a "surface phenomenon", a simple glitch in the system to be ignored.

Furthermore, as an example of this tyrannical obeyance of "inoffensive multiculturalism", I would cite the threads that have developed here around the use of the word "bitch" here on DU. Someone could use the word in making an exceptionally valid point, but you could be guaranteed that within minutes, someone would show up and ignore all the rest of the point to bemoan about how offensive they find that word to be -- to the point that the remainder of the discussion is lost in a fruitless pursuit of absolute political correctness.

I could care less about what liberal politicians do. The vast majority of them are concerned with one thing only -- getting themselves re-elected so they can keep their cushy job with its power and perks. What I care about is getting people to use their brains and to THINK about things, to dare to ask questions that challenge the most basic assumptions inherent in the social networks under which we live.

[wtmusic]

7. agree 100% that environmental issues are underaddressed

but whether economists come to agree is IMO relatively unimportant. Economists don't have a major role in shaping society (much as they think they do, they never have, and never will).

Changing our approach to the environment is a political issue. The fact that 180 nations have come together at Kyoto to do something about global warming is extremely positive. 8 years of the Bush administration is a problem but on a larger scale, IMO, not that significant. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic but I believe things can and will change.

Ultrastrict PC can be a pain in the ass but as was discussed at length in another thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=3730163&mesg_id=3730163

it has a lot more to do with intent than the words/comments themselves. Yes, if you're white and go shouting the "N" word at a NAACP convention, regardless of intent, you will probably be harmed physically. But this is nothing new. What is new is the ability to discuss topics with thousands of other people you've never met before, on a daily basis. PC is an inevitable outgrowth of that, and for the most part, it's positive.

[omega minimo]

22. Please be aware

that if a DU member chooses to blow off the DU Rules, then acts shocked and cries "censorship" when there is a reaction-- there is something else to consider...

"Furthermore, as an example of this tyrannical obeyance of "inoffensive multiculturalism", I would cite the threads that have developed here around the use of the word "bitch" here on DU. Someone could use the word in making an exceptionally valid point, but you could be guaranteed that within minutes, someone would show up and ignore all the rest of the point to bemoan about how offensive they find that word to be -- to the point that the remainder of the discussion is lost in a fruitless pursuit of absolute political correctness."

Beyond the fact that the Rules address "bitch" and other macho favorites; and the fact that the Rules request us to "exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view"-- the fact is that if people choose to express themselves in a way that seems bigoted and ignorant, the readers may lose interest (immediately) in any "exceptionally valid point" they were trying to express.

What you call "a fruitless pursuit of absolute political correctness" is actually a call for DUers to respect DU Rules and each other.

[foursquare]

12. I ask this out of ignorance...

so pardon my lack of knowledge...

Has Marxism worked anywhere?

The socialist countries are a far cry from Marxism, since their only attempt to redistribute wealth is to institute an aggressive tax structure that allows a full menu of government services.

But the underlying situation of one group owning the means of production, and the other group being tools of the first group, still exists. If I remember my college reading this is the underlying issue that Marxism seeks to redress.

[yurbud]

15. Marx got problem right--someone else needs to figure out solutions

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. Republicans offer a straight-forward program..Dems ??

The GOP has a fairly straight-forward list:

1. lower taxes
2. less government regulation of business
3. violent-menacing foreign policy--anti-UN
4. ban abortion
5. No gun control period

I'm sure there are more--but these represent some major points that the overwhelming majority of Republicans agree on. All of these cut deep into territory and take votes from people who would otherwise likely vote Dem.

I would suggest an equally straight-forward Democrat list that would cut deeply into Republican territory.

1. Single-Payer Universal Health Care
2. Fair trade--Not "free trade"--Congressional traitors will be disciplined or possibly expelled
3. Higher minimum wage
4. A REAL workers bill of rights--with teeth and genuine enforcement
5. Pro-UN
6. Pro-choice
7. strong environmental protections and enforcement

Of course there are many more--the point is a few straight-forward specifics. Not vague muddled messages about standing for good government as if someone would campaign on a promise for bad government.
And I STRONGLY agree with other who point out the need to form alliances with religious people who share our concerns. We will never, never, never, never and again I say never win with out the support of religious people. It is mathematically impossible. And I say that as an ardent secular humanist.

______________________


_______________________________________________________


A True Voice of Opposition
--A Voice for Working People
--Not the Elite--
http://www.bernie.org/issues.asp

Who is Congressman Bernie Sanders?

Read this article and watch the short video clips:

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/04/who-is-bernie-sanders.html

[BillZBubb]

3. Agreed, we don't know how to fight.

Liberals are all over the place on issues. We are weak in counter-attack for a variety of reasons. I've been told countless times that I shouldn't "sink to their level" in counter-attack. The people who said that meant well, but their position is a major reason we lose national elections.

The body politic sees liberals as not willing to fight to the death for what they claim to believe in. They see the right willing to go for the jugular on any issue they feel is important. Based on that voters reason: "who is the best equipped to protect me from crime or foreign attack?" The answer is obvious--the guys who will fight. And that's not us. Bye, bye male vote.

[RedCloud]

9. Or where to fight!

The churches that support right wing ideology need to be publicly protested!

How dare they support THOU SHALT KILL ideology.
How dare they urinate upon our Founding Father's wisdom in separating church from state.

I say we need to show up with our signs and banners.

"Hitler loved church and state!"
"Khomeini loved church and state".

"Christ told you to render unto Caesar, not kill for him!"

"Bush wants you to kill. God has spoken that thou shalt not!"

"George Washington wanted church and state separated!"

The idea being take the underpinnings of their pseudo-philosophy away from them.

Also churches that attack evolution need to have it pointed out very clearly how ignorant they are, right in their faces!

No more allowing religion to go fleecing in the sheep.

[getmeouttahere]

10. I like this, RedCloud!

especially picketing the churches with

"Hitler loved church and state"

If nothing else, you can have some fun pissing them off!

[foursquare]

13. I think that it is interesting

that Jesus lived in a country colonized by Roman soldiers, and we know historically that these Roman soldiers killed a lot of countrymen, but Jesus never said the Romans were doing anything wrong.

Off hand, I can't think of any time that Jesus condemened anyone for killing anyone. (he did stop Peter from trying to attack a Roman soldier, but realistically, I think Jesus had to know, that in a sword fight between a professional swordsman and an unemployed fisherman, the professional is going to win almost every time.)

[getmeouttahere]

4. I think it speaks to the heart of the difference between...

liberals and conservatives...we actually engage in discourse...I've seen it so many times on DU...at least a few times a week, I have an argument with someone, and 90% percent of the time I find it very constructive. Why? Because we are coming up with ideas, maybe even potential solutions to problems. You think the freeptards are doing that??? So if this makes us somehow weak, well, let's see how weak we look when this country is in tatters and we need another FDR to turn it around. Maybe we don't fight like political junk-yard dogs, but don't ever tell me we don't have ideas. Just take a look at Dennis Kucinich's website, or DU for that matter.

[klyon]

18. yes your observation is right on

We are trying to solve problems by bouncing ideas around.
The Democrats are the big tent, we encourage people of widely differing views to participate in the discussion.
Where as the republicans are controlling and expect their people to hold very narrow views and stay in lock step with leadership.
I will take the left's open approach even though it may appear unfocused at times over the rights iron fisted totalitarianism.

KL

[Speck Tater]

6. Survival of the fitest

In the desert, the plant that best captures water survives.

In the political ecosystem the party that captures the hearts and minds of the general apolitical public, thrives and grows.

Liberals cannot capture the hearts and minds of the general puublic because the general public has no idea what liberals really stand for. Largely this is because liberals have no idea what they stand for. Or rather it is that each individual liberal stands for something different.

We are not a movement. We are a loose, almost anarchistic coalition of dozens, if not hundreds of narrowly defined interest groups. There is no central message. There are no core values, at least not that we communicate effectively to the unwashed masses. There is no skeleton to serve as a framework to hold the organism together. And without a skeleton the Democratic party is as strong and well adapted as a jellyfish in the desert.

Liberals will not survive in the political ecosystem because liberals are not fit to survive in the political ecosystem. Liberals are best adapted to survive in a fantasy world of perfect, honorable, decent people who genuinely care about their fellow man. That is not the world we live in, and this reality is not a world that liberalism can work in.

The more I think about it the more I think the only rational solution is for me to become a hermit and find an isolated cave somewhere to live in.

[getmeouttahere]

8. Or why not move to a country....

that is more closely aligned to your values? Western Europe, Canada, Latin America...there are lots of places like that, I think.

[meow2u3]

11. Some liberals fit the stereotype

It doesn't help us when some of us act exactly the way extreme conservatives accuse us of acting: the anti-religious and secular fundamentalists, the far-left libertarians, radical gay-rights activists, etc.

Nor does it help us when some of us badmouth religion, even progressive expressions of religion.

Even traditional, old-school liberalism, such as sticking up for the underdog, protecting the workers from predatory employers, small businesses from monopolist corporations, or consumers from unscrupulous businesses who wish to sell us dangerous products with impunity, is being demonized because of the actions of a few hedonists.

I think we need to move leftward on economic issues (put economic issues back on the discussion table) and at least toward the middle on social issues.

[klyon]

19. I completely disagree all with your points

I would like to move right on economic issues and left on social issues. These differences in our party make life interesting and the discussion real. Long live hedonists. I will never stop questioning everything. Just because we disagree on where to draw the line on some issues doesn't mean we can't come together to stop crime, corruption and liars. Don't let religion or lack of it get in the way of the bigger picture.

KL

[agincourt]

14. Witness the Howard Dean and Durbin statements,

None of our people in congress would come up with a snappy answer to RW noise machine psuedo outrage. If a media whore asks a congressman about Dean saying "no republicans do work", why not say "well have you done any work today?". If a RW blowhard goes on about Durbin's Hitler/Pol Pet comments why not say "You conservatives say Gengis Khan was good now, maybe in 10 years you'll say Hitler and Pol Pet had their good points too. After all Pol Pet fought the same Vietnamese enemy that we fought as well". Blow that shit off with a snappy comeback. Instead to many of our leaders act like they want to ask George Bush permission to go to the bathroom. These are pig-cocksucking fat fascists, were our blood red we would fight them with knives and bullets, instead we don't have backbone even to fight with words. I literally puke ever time I see a "democrat" slamming Michael Moore who tried to make trouble for the Bush Crime family.

[Skittles]

17. what you call "banding together" is actually right-wingers goose-stepping

I agree we need to be more aggressive but we're never gonna be like them because we are NOT LIKE THEM.

[teryang]

20. Right wingers win with corporate capital, rigged elections...

...and a bought and paid for media.

"Why liberals lose." That's a catchy jingoistic turn of phrase. You have a future in the PR business.

[omega minimo]

21. Liberals don't lose--- Repugs steal elections

"Liberals should be ashamed of themselves for failing to fight the right wing menace with all the tenacity and anger it deserves. If you can't or won't fight, then don't turn on those who do. At least be an equal opportunity pacifist and refuse to fight those who fight your battles for you."

Aggression breeds aggression. The reason Repugs goosestep the party line is they are followers and their party is exclusive.

The Democrats are inclusive and independent thinkers-- actually discussing and listening to each other takes more time and attention than Dittoheads getting their daily talking points from the radio.

Not everyone wants to "taunt" conservatives or argue aggressively. Some "liberals" get in the habit of being threatened by differing points of view and come to DU perceiving a competition in what some would like to consider a discussion.

When everyone's yelling, no one is listening. Feeding anger and hostility feeds right into the RW agenda and their dishonest techniques of manipulation.