The "I Want" Syndrome and Election '04

[WilliamPitt]

"I want a candidate who will do X!"

"I want a candidate who will do Y!"

"I want a candidate who sees things like I do!"

I want a candidate who is as righteous as me!"

Fuck what you want.

This is not about what you want.

This is about the entire country, a lot of which does not think or believe as you do. Face it.

You are not important. You are not a beautiful unique snowflake. You are one among millions, among billions. You are a grain of sand on a beach.

The "I Want" Syndrome is the death of community, the death of understanding that individual desires have to be sacrifieced for the greater good. If you can't bend your neck, you are as bad as the worst Ashcroftian extremist. You are the same problem, and your course of action will deliver us to the same doom.

Nobody gives a damn what you want. Until you can use the word "We" and mean this community and the country and the planet, until you can use the word "We" in a manner that denotes your understanding that the needs of the larger whole outstrip by parsecs your own ideological masturbation, until you can stop using "I", you are a dangerous wild card whose personal suicide ride is taking us all down the chute.

[gratuitous]

1. So, you're telling us that you want

Well, nobody gives a damn what you want!

I heard that somewhere recently; can't quite remember where . . .

A-a-a-a-a-nd sarcastic smart-ass mode off! (Yeah, right)

[MuseRider]

2. Yup

the sense of community has been replaced by nationalism and it is NOT the same thing. I am not speaking about this board in particular when I say that. You are right Will, the greater good is the most important thing at this time. We can work on the rest of it later.

[GreenArrow]

33. and how do you define "greater good"?

is it the opposite of "lesser evil?"

[WilliamPitt]

35. The greater good

is a collection of policies that helps more people than it harms, that raises the working folk up a little higher, that defends the weakest in the society from the strongest. Basically, the greater good is whomever stands against what is happening now.

[GreenArrow]

46. "greater good is whomever stands against what is happening now"

So who is standing against what is happening now? Is there only one way to stand against it? Do we even have agreement as to what is "happening now? "Aren't there at least some Republicans who honestly believe that what they stand for is "the greater good?"

[Bake]

53. That's why we don't have a 1-party system (in theory at least)

With a whimsical tip o' the hat to the Greens, who see no difference between Dems and Pukes.

Bake

[HFishbine]

52. What if....

I want a candidate who will do the greatest good. Should I subvert my selfish opinion if the "community" disagrees with me?

[RobinA]

132. Disagree Here

The "greater good" is what benefits the whole as opposed to the parts. It might harm more parts than it helps in the short run, but long run it helps the whole go forward in a desirable way in order to help the future parts. I don't think it has anything to do WHICH parts are harmed or helped at any given time - except as they influence the whole.

[nannah]

165. cooperation comes from "we" thinking;

right on will! i especially like the "unique snowflake" line.

for many years i have worked with people who experience endless poverty. they are a part of "we" for whom little compassion or support is shown. demonization of the poor is an example of what happens when to protect "my" needs i choose to ignore and resent the needs of others.

As a culture we are misinformed about the value of competion in nurturing and sustaining a healthy community. cooperation is the key to sustainable economies and ecologies. cooperation grows in a climate of "we" not "me".

paying taxes is a manifestation of cooperative behaviour; but it has been twisted and manipulated into being perceived as hateful and onerous. ironically., many of those who complain so bitterly about paying taxes are the very people who rake in taxpayer dollars.

[MuseRider]

36. Well, we all feel differently

but since you asked...for me the greater good is to get Bush* out and work from that point. OR to get the congress and work from there. I am willing at this point to give up a few of my ideals to accomplish that. I am not asking anyone else to do that but in this case I agree with Will. In a better time I feel that I could be a little more pure or more true to my own ideals but we are fighting the devil and I can give and take to accomplish his defeat.

[GreenArrow]

51. that's a fair and honest answer

but you also have to accept that some people's ideals are given up less willingly; are there any ideals that you would not be willing to give up in order to defeat Bush?

[MuseRider]

58. I used to think so

but now I am not sure. I mean, of course, within the choices we are being given. Several of our candidates I find repugnant and I don't agree with them but I will vote for them with a forced smile if that is all we have to beat Bush*. It has not been proven to me that any of them will be more harmful than Bush*. When we have a election that we do not have to worry will be stolen, when we have an opponent who is conservative but is not harming the world then I think I will have a harder time giving up my ideals. Of course we should all vote our ideals, of course our ideals are all important. It is my opinion that this point in history requires that we join together and do the best we can to get rid of Bush* no matter what.

[RobinA]

134. I Don't Think

it's necessarily a matter of giving up ideals. Some people will credibly argue that the greater good is not served by settling for half a candidate. They feel that Dem voters have to force the candidates to be true Dems or risk not getting elected. Again. They figure a few Bushes are a price they are willing to pay to get back to liberal basics. I am not one of these people, I'll vote for a kitchen chair if I think it can beat Bush, but I do think there's an argument to be made that this is not good in the long run.

[Walt Starr]

192. You have just described my position

If the Democratic Party puts up a candidate who is unacceptable, it is better to vote third party and have that unacceptable candidate lose to Bush. The damage an unacceptable candidate can do to the Democratic Party over a four year period could be far worse than enduring another four years of the chimp.

[trogdor]

198. We discussed this at the Dean Meetup last Wed.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

WP is absolutely right. The only person who agrees with you 100% of the time is the person you see in the mirror in the morning, and perhaps your dog. Fortunately, golden retrievers do not have voting rights in this country, even though people have tried to register them in the past.

I do not have to agree with anyone 100% of the time. This is the sort of attitude certain Republicans cultivate when they send out bullshit news releases like, "the ACLU is defending axe murderers and serial rapists." Although I would be upset if a convicted axe murderer or serial rapist did not go to prison, I would also be highly upset if the jury convicted a mere scapegoat while the real perp is still at large. Thus, due process serves everyone, not just the accused. But I digress. The point is, I do not have to agree with the ACLU 100% of the time to consider myself a card-carrying member.

There are too many one-issue people around, even within the DU community. If you are really upset that Howard Dean, for example, wants to maintain the embargo on Cuba for the remainder of Castro's lifetime, be assured that George W. Bush agrees with him, as do most of his Democratic competition. You have to look at the whole platform, not just the one plank.

[Semi_subversive]

3. "I want"

to thank you for those words of wisdom.

[terryg11]

4. while it is annoying at times

and ridiculous even how shrill we get on what we want, it's still our right to say what we would like in a candidate. You make some good points and I even agree a little but isn't this a place where we can sound off on wht we want?

This is about what I want, by the way and that's to do right by us, the american people. We need someone to lead us into this next century with dignity and a will to do right by the weakest of us, that's what I want.

[sangh0]

14. I don't think so

isn't this a place where we can sound off on what we want?

I suggest you read the "About DU" page. While you CAN sound off, it's not what DU is "about".

it's still our right to say what we would like in a candidate

Just because you have the right to say something doesn't make it right to say it. WIll didn't say you have no right to say that. Will merely pointed out that there are better reasons for supporting/opposing a candidate, and that reason has nothing to do with what *you* want.

It's about what's best for all of us (which is probably what you want)

[terryg11]

27. not that it matters, but you are trying to put words in my mouth

"While you can sound off, it's not what DU is about" well, I never said that

"Just because you have the right to say something doesn't make it right to say it" I agree whole heartedly, but when it comes to a candidate for a public office and wht you would like to see that's ok.

It seems to be wishful thinking on many a persons part to say that supporting/opposing a candidate hs nothing to do with what they want when thousands if not millions vote that way. sorry but they do, tons of one issue voters out there and a lot of them are here at DU, I've seen it (anti Iraq war, prochoice to name a few).

I agree that there are better reasons to support a candidate just think Pitt's tone was a little melodramatic, still a big fan though

[Terwilliger]

5. I want a party worth voting for!

Oh, I know, I know...it's ALLLL about me :freak:

[bearfartinthewoods]

55. so...vote green

either that or come with us to a dem inagural party

[JVS]

59. Do you promise not to piss and moan if he does vote Green?

or are you bluffing. Either you want votes or you don't. If you tell people to leave, no crying when they're gone.

[bearfartinthewoods]

80. look at what he said....he wants a party worth voting for

it's not just a certain candidate that he finds unworthy it's our whole party. shall we remake the entire party to get his vote?

i guess i'm just sick of the "i want' drama too.

the only thing i want is to be rid of bush before someone retires from the scotus. that's primo to me and i can't understand how the hell other people can't see that.

[JVS]

106. Then I suggest that you not tell people to go vote Green

Ideological purity purges from the right are no better than ideological purity defections on the left.

[bearfartinthewoods]

117. i gave him a choice

i didn't tell him to go the hell away or anything.

realisticly, just how much of a makeover will happen in this party in the next year? if there is not enough about this party to attract greens at this point, just what is going to happen between now and then to change that? the only thing that would make some of them happy is to run DK and that ain't gonna happen.

realisticly, he has a choice....swallow hard and vote for whoever we nominate or not. if Dean is our nominee, i'll be gulping as i'm voting but i'll be voting.

the idea that some people are just sooooo pure and have soooo much more integrity than i do, since i'm willing to bend into a pretzel if need be, is frankly wearing thin.

face it....there aren't a lot of greens period and most of them are in safe dem states so i'm getting pretty damn close to the point of telling them to do what they feel they need to do.

[Terwilliger]

131. oh THANK YOU

I NEVER would have thought of thinking for myself!

sheesh bear...you people are going to lose the election on your own then you're going to blame me, Nader, and the Greens YET AGAIN :nuke:

[Terwilliger]

202. you do realize you're saying Greens are worth voting for

nice work bear! :eyes:

[searchingforlight]

6. I see your point and agree with it on some level but

Isn't it just as presumptuous for the "I" to say "We"? How can one state a desire for mankind without introducing the "I" in some form?

[wrkclskid]

7. Exactly Will!

This is about the kids who have lost their free school lunches, the people out of work and those who live in states tha have had to cut health care and education. I may not always agree with cadidae X's opinion, but my unique as a snowflake desires must come second to the better good of this country.

[StopTheMorans]

8. great post Will

I, wait, we especially loved these lines:

"Until you can use the word "We" and mean this community and the country and the planet, until you can use the word "We" in a manner that denotes your understanding that the needs of the larger whole outstrip by parsecs your own ideological masturbation, until you can stop using "I", you are a dangerous wild card whose personal suicide ride is taking us all down the chute."

"ideological masturbation", that is too perfect!

[_Wayne_]

9. Actually, if someone called me a snoflake

I'm afraid I'd have to kick their ass :) :)

[Kahuna]

10. I've been saying the same thing. You just said it better.

:7

on edit:

Watch it Will. You're beginning to sound like a centrist. :wow:

[Don_G]

11. Well Said!

I want a President that will do the greatest good for the country as a whole and in the long run because it's ultimately good for my family.

I want another FDR or Clinton who can steer the US through troubled times and/or leave a surplus in spite of "greedy" leadership.

I want strict legislation enacted so our "leaders" can't profit from the laws they pass nor skirt the law to profit themselves.

I want jobs to be kept in the US as much as possible so we are fairly independant as a nation subject to no other nation's financial/political agenda.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[StopTheMorans]

13. this is a nation of individuals who should be willing to make some

small sacrifice for the greater good IMHO, read into that what you'd like.

[Kahuna]

15. Beautifully said.

:D

[Raven]

56. Very, very constructive... as his mother, I'm telling you

he's not selling me...believe me...he's not and you really should come up with a better dispatch for him besides "go jump in a lake". He is saying what we all know...this is a country of diverse people...with diverse wants and needs and interests and we have to look at the whole...and we better not eat our own. It's the "we" that will win this election and it is the "I want" or "I've got" that will divide and kill it.

[MuseRider]

62. It seems like

anytime the word we comes up around here there is a knee jerk reaction that it is being used as the Royal We. There is certainly a good reason to suspect that these days but not here and IMO not from Will.

[JVS]

16. "Nobody gives a damn what you want."

Great tactic to gain voters. :eyes:

[WilliamPitt]

18. Actually, it is

If this forum is made up of activists, which in one form or another it is, then we stop saying "I want." We find out what other people want, and we do what we can to give it to them.

I was addressing DU, not the wider world.

[JohnKleeb]

21. I see what you mean

Kucinich's education plan isnt gonna benefit people like me but if it can help otherwise poor kids who had a hard time getting in to college its ok. Most of the policies I support dont directly benefit me and many of them I support because they are right not because they are about me.

[JVS]

26. Telling people that their desires are unimportant is a bad move

Kerry was with some poor woman at a diner this weekend. Did he say "Fuck off lady, your problems are your own. We have no need for your individual desires"? No he didn't. He listened to her problems sympathetically. Right now the Democratic party is so weak that it seems unable to do anything but attack those close to it. Pink tutu democrat is a misnomer. What we have is a party whose behavior is more akin to a guy who comes home after having his ass chewed by the boss and then beats his wife and kids.

[Eloriel]

37. You know, Will

Apparently someone set you off to make you come up with this little rant of yours. Whatever meaning it has, and it's precious little, is quite frightening.

You'd have been much better off being more explicit about whatever torqued your gears, and THEN maybe you wouldn't come off sounding like such a Nazi. In Nazi Germany, the good of the Fatherland was all, uber alles. Citizens were EXPECTED to sublimate whatever good THEY wanted or needed to the good of the Fatherland.

That's NOT the type of country I want to live in. Nor is it what I want to see activists of any kind catering to or promoting.

We find out what other people want, and we do what we can to give it to them.


Well, maybe you're talking marketing, I dunno. Or positioning. Or framing the debate. But you're NOT talking either democracy or democratic (large D or small d) activism.

You're waaaay off base. Can you find your way back?

Eloriel

[Q]

121. Thanks, Eloriel...

...what a refreshing post among the ATTACK OF THE PITT CLONES.

[RobinA]

137. I Think

he's talking about winning an election.

Some people on DU get themselves all in a lather whenever anyone suggests that everyone pulling in the same direction might be a good idea. "It's my RIGHT to pull any way I want!!!!" They proclaim. Well at the rate things are going with Repubs AND Dems, exercising that right might be one of the last rights a Dem gets to exercise. First-term George is scary enough, I can't WAIT for lame duck George.

[StopTheMorans]

20. IMO, you completely missed the thrust of Will's thread

it was not about candidates not caring about what is best for america, i.e. the following: "Nobody gives a damn what you want. Until you can use the word "We" and mean this community and the country and the planet, until you can use the word "We" in a manner that denotes your understanding that the needs of the larger whole outstrip by parsecs your own ideological masturbation, until you can stop using "I", you are a dangerous wild card whose personal suicide ride is taking us all down the chute."

As I understood it, it was about taking the route that is best for the country at this particular point in time, which mean's getting Whistle Ass the f*ck out of dodge.

[JVS]

32. The only way to use we is to assume that you speak for many

Since no one can rightfully claim to speak for the world, unless they have a monstrous ego problem, it all boils down to telling individuals to shut up in favor of the collective will of the people. This wouldn't be so bad, except that the collective will of the people has yet to be determined or articulated. So individuals are to shut up until they can speak for a huge mass of people who have yet to come up with their desires. Sorry, I'm not buying.

[MuseRider]

75. Do you really believe that?

When I use the word we it always means community. I speak for no one but myself but I know that we are all in this together, divided perhaps but together. I have no PM's from Will telling me how to vote, hell I don't know the guy but I have never read anything he has written as an edict. Perhaps it is in our interpretation. BYW, I am not a one of his "brownshirts" as someone else called it. I don't speak for him either.

[JVS]

81. I believe what I posted

You seem to be putting some things into our discussion that I never said. (Brownshirts, PM's come quickly to mind. I never said that)

[MuseRider]

86. I said that those

comments came from someone else. I never said you said that. I can't say I have never gotten confused and I am not always the clearest writer. The PM and brownshirt was from someone else entirely.

[JVS]

112. Ok

I find it presumptuous for someone to claim to speak for the community. I know that there is someone out there who agrees with me on issues but that doesn't justify me speaking in the plural. I think individual expression in politics is a good thing. By speaking their minds individuals raise issues that need to be addressed.

[marshmellow]

17. I want a candidate that understands politics is a contact sport.

When Clinton was caught with his zipper down, all the dems were leading every interview with an apology. Gray Davis is apologizing during the recall effort. Apologies will not firm up toughness with the public. Toughness is in short supply in the dem's quiver.

When was the last time you saw a republican apologize for anything.

[Eloriel]

19. That's pretty chilling

I'm feeling all goose-stepped here. Anyone else?

Loyalthy oaths, Will? Is that what's next? Loyalty TESTS, perhaps?

Heil, Pitt!!!!!

Eloriel

Edited to add: Here's the deal. SOMEONE or some group of someones will be deciding just what the good of the "we" in community and nationa and planet, etc. Ideally, the common good is built from all those "I want's" coming together -- unless, of course, YOU are the arbiter of what's best for the country.

And *I* didn't -- and wouldn't -- vote for you. But I'm not sure you're talking about a democracy at all. As I said: Heil, Pitt!!!!

[sangh0]

25. Typical

Will makes a point, and so he's accused of demanding "loyalty oaths". Obviously, Will is a goose-stepping Nazi.

How original!

[Northwind]

29. Damn straight!

:crazy:

[JVS]

39. I'm with you Eloriel

After years of being told that I don't show enough respect for the individual by conservatives, I find it chilling to be told that I regard the individual too highly by liberals.

[Walt Starr]

135. BRAVO!

Nothing more needs to be said than that, Eloriel!

[imhotep]

22. unbelievable

I suppose Will Pitt knows what is best for all?
Can you be any more condescending?

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemBones DemBones]

23. Will, you can "we, we, we" all the way home

but you still want what you want as much as anyone else does so please stop trying to lay a guilt trip on all of us for expressing our opinions. To compare anyone here to an Ashcroftian extremist is a bit much.

The Democratic nominee has not been chosen and won't be for many months. Until then, I reserve the right to speak my mind. If you don't like it, well, fuck what you like. If you can talk that way to me, I can give it back to you.

[XanaDUer]

100. What Dembones Dembones said...

Will, I love your posts most of the time, but ya gotta off your high horse with these rants.

The patronizing tone is too much. It's a political message board, and as long as users stay withing the easy-to-understand rules, they can post what they like. No permission needed from anyone.

Who wants a left-wing dictatorship anymore than a right-wing one?

[tom_paine]

24. Goddamned that was well said, Sir William!

It mirrors my sentiment almost to a T!

It should mirror the sentiments of all DUers, really.

"We will all hang together or surely we shall all hang seperately."
--Benjamin Franklin

"The bulk of the German anger was directed at the ineffectual Opposition Parties who refused to align in their opposition to the Nazis."
--Sebastian Haffner, "Defying Hitler"

"You could run...and live. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing to trade ALL the days from this day to that to come back here and show our enemies that they can take our lives...but they cannot take our FREEDOM!"
--William Wallace, the movie "Braveheart"

[Bake]

66. Who are you, TP, to tell me what I SHOULD think??

Or Will, or anyone else, to tell me or anybody else what The DU Mindset SHOULD be??

Bake

[tom_paine]

101. Take it easy, Bake. It's an opinion like any other.

Do you see me preparing Room 101 for you like in "1984" to change your mind?

No. What you see is an opinion, like tens of thousands expressed here every day.

I'd apologize for offending you, but that's bullshit. You have as much right to express what you think of my opinion as I have to express of yours. And we each have to same right to ignore each other or to scratch each other in response.

(you also might note that your name certainly isn't mentioned in my initial post)

I said what I wished for, a DU where we will all pull together to defeat Emperor Tiberius* in 2004, after the primaries, if such a thing is even possible in these Orwellian-Totalitarian-Tending-Times-of-Diebold-Touchscreen-"Voting". And I won't apologize for that.

And DU mindset will be what it will be. No wishes or opinions are going to change that.

But I would ask you to think about that Haffner quote, Bake.

We are, in the end, on the same side.

Plus a change, plus a la meme chose
(the more things change, the more they stay they same...)

[Bake]

152. We ARE on the same side! That's what I'm trying to tell you!

We're like one big, sometimes dysfunctional, family. We have our disagreements, and now is the time to work them out, so that at the end of the primary season, NOBODY better fuck with us! TomPaine, at the end of the day, you KNOW that I will stand with you and Will on the front lines and bust my ass to get our guy IN and Smirk OUT. But at this point in the PROCESS, we have to honor not only the PROCESS (after all, it's only democracy ...) but our constituents, not all of whom agree. We have to give everybody the right to say their piece in order to have PEACE (i.e., unity) in the general campaign. So don't tell me, or anyone else, what we ought to think unless you are making an argument to win over my heart and mind to your point of view. Very few of us here are ready to march in lockstep at this point.

Bake

[leftofthedial]

142. well said Will and tom_paine

the first filter on all of us is "are we opposed to the Bush/PNAC fascists or not"?

If your answer is no, then get the hell out of here.

If your answer is yes, then your only choice is to pull together with the rest of us and vote for whomever the Democrats nominate. NOT because you have no ideals. NOT for the good of the Democratic Party. NOT because you agree with that candidate 100% (or even 50%) on every single issue.

But because it is the ONLY way to get the fascists out of power. Either elect a Democrat or face another four years of fascist rule and four more years of everything getting MUCH worse. You think things have sucked the last couple of years, just wait.

If you try to tell me that there is not as much difference between Democrats and Republicans as there should be or as you would like, I will agree with you wholeheartedly. But if you try to tell me that there is NO difference, you will expose yourself as an ignorant extremist zealot.

Voting for anyone other than the Democratic candidate or abstaining over a principle may make you feel better/superior/morepure/whatever (what Will calls "I want"), but it will help the fascists stay in power.

I have voted in every local, state and national election since 1974 and I have NEVER found a candidate who represented my views 100% (though Kucinich comes damned close). Compromise is part of the political process, not only for politicians, but for voters too.

After we get the fascists out of power, we can fight the progressive wars among ourselves and the lefty puritans, the single-issue extremists, the progressives, the centrists, the socialists, and all the other factions represented here can go after one another and try to figure out what is pure and good.

But if we don't focus on getting the fascists out of power first and foremost, there may be no DU where we can argue the fine points of porgressivism.

[Walt Starr]

143. I beg to differ, there are many options

Blindly following whomever happens to win the Dem ocratic nomination is the absolutely WORST thing that can be done. That's what Republicans do.

I don't buy it, especially since that sort of thing could lead to a worse defeat and worse fascism down the road (read in 2008).

Read my sig. Reform takes decades, not years.

[leftofthedial]

145. we don't have decades

How would you proceed with "reform"?

[Walt Starr]

146. Fuck voting for Lapdog Democrats

Decades is the only way to make it work if an unacceptable candidate is nominated. I refuse to vote to make the Democratic Party worse off in 2008 than it is today. That will only lead to a worse situation in 2011 than we have today.

IF I have the choice between two evils, I will make a different choice.

[leftofthedial]

149. How would you proceed with reform?

Or first, what do you mean by reform?

Reform the left?

Reform the entire American political system?

How does pursuing a strategy that will leave you permanently out of power get you any closer to whatever reform you desire?


Also, for that matter, what do you mean by "lapdog Democrats"?

[Walt Starr]

151. I'm talking about reforming the Democratic Party

which has swung WAAAAAYYYYY to far to the right.

Lapdog Democrats include (but are not limited to) Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, and Edwards.

[leftofthedial]

156. we WAY agree

The "average" Democratic position on just about every issue during the last ten years (or longer) is about five clicks to the right (on a total political scale of ten) of where I wish it was.

But I don't live in France or Germany. I don't have the luxury of voting for a socialist and having any expectation that they have the slightest chance of being elected. I am not content with living my life and raising my children in a world where my only political contribution is purely symbolic. That's why I'm a Democrat.

Clinton was far too far to the right for me, but we were better of with him than we would have been with Bush the First or with Dole, and FAR better off than we are now.

Hence my comments about compromise. I started out as an idealist, but I eventually learned I was cutting off my nose to spite my face. Politics is all about the eternal struggle between ideals and pragmatism. Refusing to vote for a candidate who voted in favor of the Iraq resolution, for example, is a strong, principled stand. I don't argue with the ideal at the heart of that belief. Hell, come to Colorado and I'll buy you a beer and toast your position on that issue.

All I am pointing out is that by refusing to vote for one of them (if they are nominated) you could throw out the baby with the bathwater. All of them (even, gag! Lieberman) have positions that are better than what Bush/PNAC does. And voting for the Iraq resolution ( a bad, bad thing, I'll grant you) is not the equivalent of the regime that conceived, planned and executed the Invasion.

Voting is not passing moral judgement -- it is a pragmatic political act.

We all have an obligation to work to move our party to be progressive and more consistently attuned to the egalitarian ideals at its heart. I am proud to be in a party that includes you and people who feel the way you do about the issues.

I just think we're better off and better able to "reform" the party if we work together to do it and if we do it from power instead of under a fascist regime.

[Walt Starr]

193. I disagree completely

The dmage a Lieberman presidency would do to the Democratic PArty would be far worse than the damage another four years of Bush would do to this country.

That's my opinion on it. In a scenario where Lieberman is the Democratic nominee, the greater good is served by allowing the Democrats to lose.

[leftofthedial]

207. Perhaps you could explain your statement about the damage

each would do.

There are clear and important differences between even Lieberman and Bush. I don't support Lieberman either, but on health care, taxes, civil rights, the environment, support for labor, education, and family issues, Lieberman is a FAR better choice than Bush.

Clinton was a centrist Democrat too. Was America better off under Clointon or now under Bush?

[Walt Starr]

208. The difference is short term vs. long term

Bush getting four more years is the short term damage, lasting perhaps a decade.

Lieberman is the long term damage, lasting multiple decades, perhaps longer, because the Democratic Party would be in owrse shape come 2008 than it is now.

[JVS]

148. The fact that we don't have decades is why we must put up a good candidate

now.

[leftofthedial]

159. that's why I support Kucinich

His ideas are the same ideas I was raised on--FDR's New Deal and Johnson's Great Society.

Social justice!

But I gave up long ago thinking any politician would be perfect.

It is always now and it is always a choice and it is never "my way or the highway."

[Walt Starr]

194. I don't want "perfect"

I want an "acceptable" candidate.

If the Democratic Candidate is unacceptable, I won't be voting for her/him.

[leftofthedial]

153. of course there are options

When it comes to how you vote:

1. You can vote for the Democrat..
2. You can vote for Bush
3. You can vote for whomever else you wish.
4. You can not vote.

That's about it.

What is the outcome of each? Either the Democrat or Bush will win. No one else has a chance.

My point (and we unsuccessfully argued this before) is that any choice other than #1 will be a failure to take positive action to oppose fascism.

Yes, at the end of the day, you can stand and say "I stood for what I believed in. I never voted for the fascists, but those Democrats just weren't pure enough for me, so I didn't vote for them either." (You and I may be standing in either a bread line or a line for the concentration camp showers at the time.)

Voting aside, you and I can work tirelessly to try to either move the Democratic Party back to its progressive ideals and away from the DLC-centrist, Repug-lite sellout positions, but that will be easier in a free country.

Four more years of the current fascist regime and this country may not be "free" for a long, long time.

[Walt Starr]

195. It's not that black and white

What is the outcome of each? Either the Democrat or Bush will win. No one else has a chance.

Let's examine each of the four scenarios you presented:

1. You can vote for the Democrat..

In this scenario, you are correct, it is black or white.

2. You can vote for Bush

ibid.

3. You can vote for whomever else you wish.

Assuming you mean voting for somebody other than the Democrat or Bush, you have just made a statement that goes beyond black or white. Assuming you are a Democrat and have previously voted straight Democratic tickets in every election for over two decades (as in my case), you have just said, "I find this no longer acceptable. I will vote for this third party candidate over hear because that could possibly do some good by getting enough votes for that party for them to receive the matching funds and become a contender in future elections because obviously the Democrats no longer represent my stance."

4. You can not vote.

Same as above with the exception that you are not helping a third party along to become a contender in future elections.

[ibegurpard]

28. Please spare me the lecture

I'm willing to compromise plenty and will probably be willing to do so even more when there IS one candidate but until that time, I'll try to do what I can to see the person I think is the best candidate get the nomination.

[Egnever]

31. well that was your first post I consider complete

:puke:

GARBAGE!

Voting for a representative on any stage in politics is about voting for the guy that best represents what you want. Not what you poll everyone else on and decide is what they want.

Normally I think you do some great work and i was very impressed by your speech in front of the veterans. But this one is tripe.

Its about what we want?


Who the fuck is we?

[WilliamPitt]

34. Nice

One of the worst things to happen in politics was Reagan asking, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" This question allowed the ascendancy of unrepentant selfishness in the electorate, and the loss of the idea that we are all in this together and must think of the community before ourselves. Seems like you fell for it. "Who is we?" you ask. Sad.

[StandWatie]

40. no, that little rant was sad

It's "drink the kool-aid" sort of cult worship and I'm suprised that you wrote it. Have you been sleeping well lately?

[Egnever]

43. Fell for what?

I couldnt give a shit what ronald reagan had to say or any politician for that matter unlesss they are saying things that I think need to be said. I am not here to be convinced of anything by any politician. I do my own reasearch on subjects that are important to me and form my own opinions.

Somehow you seem to be suggesting that i should lay aside what is important to me for the greater good of everyone else. Sory Will that's crap. When the shit hits the fan you are left alone every single time. Thats life thats reality. You have to fight for what you believe in or lose yourself.

Dont get me wrong Ill vote democrat in 2004 even if its leiberman. But that doesnt mean that till that choice is forced on me I should just lay down and allow others to make that choice for me because the collective we knows whats best for me. This is what you seem to be sugesting and quite honestly I find it offensive.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RobinA]

138. The Majority

of this thread does kind of make your point....

[Alenne]

38. Some DUers are not immune to selfishness

It has been said many times on DU that most Americans are selfish. It's true.

[bearfartinthewoods]

41. btw

i now understand

why someone accused me

of trying to be you.

[JVS]

42. "Fuck what you want."

How does this differ from Bush's "Who cares what you think"?

On edit: except that Bush was more polite.

[disgruntella]

44. i agree with you up until the last paragraph

I agree that lots of people on DU want their candidate to mirror their expectations to an unrealistically perfect degree. Let's remember that we are electing politicians who represent constituencies -- we're not looking for life partners.

However, you lost me in the last paragraph.
"Until you can use the word "We" and mean this community and the country and the planet" -- call me crazy but I wouldn't trust anyone who used the word "we" in this way. Politicians have to do it, of course, that's a fact of life -- and that's why they will always be seen in my eyes with a healthy dose of skepticism.

But the general gist of your message, that people need to look beyond their own personal litmus tests -- that I do agree with.

And this is also refreshing to hear: "This is about the entire country, a lot of which does not think or believe as you do. Face it." I come to DU because I am acutely aware that my vision of America differs drastically from most of the people in my community. But doesn't mean I can write them all off and still hope for a Democratic win in 2004.

Well, I have to go back to work now. Thanks

[bearfartinthewoods]

104. i don't get your issue with the use of the word we?

i don't understand.

[disgruntella]

130. here's the way i interpreted it

(which may not be how the original poster intended it to sound)

The way the word "we" was used made it sound like there was some definable "we the people" which individuals posting on this board were ignoring, but which the original poster had all the answers about. It just came off sounding kind of condescending to me (although I'm not going to attack the guy, sheesh)

I'm not able to articulate this very clearly. Maybe I'll try again later. I think someone else on the thread put it more coherently (if impolitely): "Who the fuck is we?"

[Nicholas_J]

45. Will I loved the book

But it really was more polemic than anything else.

But it was polemic I mostly agree with...

I have to agree with many other responsing here.

Much of the time you come across sounding like the Messiah of the Democratic Party, imparting the Gospel of Politics to the unwashed masses in the Sermon on Mount DU.

Please, you are really like the rest of us.


TO quote Tip O'Neil "All politic is local"

I would take that one further...

All politics is personal...

I beleive that this used to be a dictum of the womens movement.

[matcom]

47. the personal attacks against Will are fucking disgusting

how pathetic.

BTW, i happen to disagree with this post (see my PRIMARY thread) but some of you people are disgraceful.

[bicentennial_baby]

48. Over the top

I swear the Will Pitt hater-brigade waits for moments like this... :puke:

[JohnKleeb]

68. I didnt even know he had haters

but I will join you and mat in a friendly :puke:. I read his book too and enjoyed it, good job man, and I read what you said about my candiate that was sweet. BTW also Will I read your planned speech for labor day superb as always. As Ive said I want a better live for others and etc.

[Spentastic]

188. Hold up

Matcom fuck you. There how does that sit?

If Will wants to start fights he should expect to get smacked in the mouth.

[ulysses]

49. I'm not a snowflake?

:eyes:

Pray tell - when do we get to find out just what it is we want?

[Walt Starr]

136. "We" get to find out when"We" nominate some fool

then "We" will lose, again.

[DemLikr]

139. Yes, you are a snowflake, Ulysses! Just like all the other special...

...snowflakes here. :)

[HFishbine]

50. We

want to know where Kerry stands on the war.

[disgruntella]

54. write him a letter

and ask him. Call his campaign office. Go to one of his speaking engagements and shout out your question. Seems to me as a Democratic voter you have every right to ask if he isn't being specific enough for you. If you ask here, you'll get more opinion than fact.

[HFishbine]

61. Well Damn!

That's damn good advice. An honest answer to that question is nowhere to be found on DU. I'll write to Kerry and ask him.

[robsul82]

57. I can understand the message...

...but do you really think ripping off Tyler Durden from Fight Club was the way to go about it?

Later.

RJS

[Wetzelbill]

114. Hahaha that's funny

I was thinking Will was trying to be a cross between Tyler Durden and JFK. "You are not a unique snowflake, ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country, the first rule of...nevermind."

Pitt, you magnificent bastard.. I read your book(s). Hell, I even interviewed you. One thing for sure is whether Will rubs people wrong or not, he, at least, gets everybody riled up. Passion I like, ripping on others I don't. Kudos to Will and everyone else who are able to take his emotional posts at face value and introspect like true activists. To the rest, well, don't get angry, get motivated.

Meanwhile, I'm going to hone my snowflakish powers.

[Bake]

60. I respectfully disagree, Will

The danger in what you suggest is that SOMEBODY (you, perhaps?) makes the decision about which candidate will produce the greatest good. While I think we all agree that the one overriding objective is to kick The Smirky Bastard out of the People's House, once you get past that, there's a lot of disagreement. So under your plan, somebody decides who gets to be the candidate and we're all supposed to get in line and march (much like the Pukes do). And that's not how we do things.

This is the quintessential marketplace of ideas, both in America at large, and here at DU. We throw our ideas out there, we argue our points, we contest the arguments of others, and at the end of the day, we hope the best ideas win out. I will say that I have had my mind changed on certain issues because of DU; I'm sure others have too.

I never want to see any of us feel compelled to shut up and get in line. Especially now, during the primary season. Once we get past the phase of testing the candidates, casting our votes, and we have ONE SURVIVOR, having kicked all the rest off the island, then AND ONLY THEN, I hope we will all work to support OUR candidate (but PLEEEEZE don't let it be Holy Joe!!!!).

So Will, I respectfully disagree. Rare, but it happens.

Bake

[mlawson]

63. I WANT bush&Co to fall in November 2004!!!

No other 'want' comes within fifty light years, for me. WHICHEVER Dem is the best one to accomplish this, I will support him. That's it, period.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nederland]

65. Actually

I am unique. Just like everybody else.

[KaraokeKarlton]

69. Hell, it's not even about what "We" want anymore...

It's about what the country NEEDS. The country NEEDS someone who can clean up one hellacious mess. The country NEEDS someone with endless energy, drive, determination AND experience cleaning up messes they inherit. The country NEEDS someone who inspires and motivates them to do something, anything to improve things...and that means involvement, not passive involvement, but ACTIVE involvement. The country NEEDS Howard Dean, and ultimately, that's why I support him.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JVS]

77. It isn't telling us how to vote per say.

It is telling us how to act in a much larger sense. It is not a call to compromise, it is a demand to surrender our individual desires. The breadth of this order encompasses voting among many other things.

[matcom]

79. a DEMAND?

since when does ANYONE comply with a DEMAND????

PUHLEASE

the PERSONAL attacks here are a pathetic display of childishness.

keep in mind, i DISAGREE with the post but on its merits, NOT because of "WHO" posted it. there IS a difference

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JVS]

98. What personal attacks? I didn't make any personal attacks.

I call the original post a demand. If the original post had not been so harshly worded it might have qualified as a plea or a request. But Pitt used such very strong language to call people to give up their individual desires in the 2004 race that it became a demand. It was implicit in the language that if you didn't step into line you were worthless scum. If this isn't a demand, it is at least browbeating of the highest order. I never disagreed with the post because of who posted it, I thought it was a bad post from the very beginning.

[neuvocat]

82. You have a problem with reading Pitt's post?

Talking about candidates:

"Fuck what you want.

This is not about what you want."

Yeah well IT IS WHAT WE FUCKING WANT!!!!

WE DON'T WANT WHAT WILL PITT WANTS!!!!

WE DON'T WANT JOHN "GET OVER IT" KERRY!!!

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[neuvocat]

89. Ok I see what this is about now.

Pitt can say what he pleases and you'll jump in to change it all around and piss and moan about "merits" that aren't even there to begin with.

[chadm]

90. Exactly

I don't even know who Pitt is, I was solely talking about the merits...or lack thereof.

[matcom]

91. YOU can say what YOU please too

i don't see ANY posts where Pitt personally attacked ANYBODY

can you point me to one?

[neuvocat]

95. All these attacks and you can't find any.

You want me to point one out?

I'll just quote your little hero Pitt: "Fuck what you want."

[JVS]

105. Technically those are not personal attacks

They are attacks on broad groups. And they are also attacks on anyone who may disagree with his point of 'surrender of the individual will to the collective' to sum up the post. I think it is a disgusting use of the Bully pulpit.

[neuvocat]

118. You can still isolate whole groups of people and single them out.

And in the process make people in those groups feel completely marginalized. The idea of surrendering to the will of the "collective" happens too much around here.

[JVS]

123. I agree completely

Had I been moderator I would have locked this as flamebait. This is definitely a new and ugly side to the ABB movement.

[WilliamPitt]

87. You think I was talkinjg about Kerry?

I was talking about ideological sacrifice and doing away with ivory-tower worldviews. If Kerry fits, so be it. If not, so be it. I am willing to sacrifice my desire to see a candidate elected for the greater good of seeing any of our candidates elected.

Your hate has not made you powerful. You accuse me of trying to speak for others...and then say "We don't want..." Pretty funny, actually. You, I mean. Again.

[chadm]

93. and who gets to define "ivory tower" and "greater good"

I actually think a lot of you guys are TOO patient and too willing to make ideological sacrifices. If I'm a Populist Green and "sacrifice" to support an Authoritarian Right-Winger like most of the Democratic candidates then what do I have left?

Now, if its a choice between Kucinich (D) and Nader (G) of course I'll go with Kucinich. Are you willing to sacrifice to support Kucinich?

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[neuvocat]

115. C'mon, I thought you were supposed to be the adult here.

What happened in the span of a single post, huh?

[bpilgrim]

74. I AM WE

if we = i + you then WE see that the INDIVIDUAL NEEDS are a primary component in the equation and therefore a NECESSARY part of the definition WE.

the real CHALLENGE is PRIORITIES.

now if we could discuss civilly what that order should be...

:hi:

peace

[mistertrickster]

84. OMG, he has the audacity to fight rampant selfishness,

practically a God-given right in the United States.

We are part of a society and a world--Americans aren't very good at seeing that. That's why unions are viewed with such suspicion. That we must do good for ourselves by doing good for others hasn't been very popular since Buddah, Marcus Aurelius, and Jesus floated the idea, but a salute you for having the guts to bring it up.

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.

"My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of mankind."
JFK Inaugural Address, 1961

[MuseRider]

94. Well stated.

I avoid taking too much issue with some of the people on this board because frankly I do not like to get bashed but this is the worst example of community I have ever seen in my life. It is a sad statement that we can't even stand someone else including us in something good without screaming that we are NOT part of the whole just because someone says we are. Jesus. If we don't know that the intentions of this poster are close to our own by now then we don't know a thing. Not everyone is the enemy, especially here.

[chadm]

97. I agree with the sentiment and the general philosophy

But when it comes to voting, that's a PERSONAL decision. That's kind of the whole idea behind democracy...the sum of all "I wants" equals the "we get".

[never cry wolf]

120. Will was not talking about votes

and i am sure he wants you to vote for the candidate of your choice. I don't see this at all as a plea for unity in backing a particular one of our nominees, to the exclusion of the others but rather a plea for us to debate their relative merits in a civil method without having to resort to bashing the candidate you would not prefer or their backers. he is not trying to tell anyone to NOT like their preferred candidate, just that WE should all keep in mind the collective good in our common goals and that bashing and flaming is counterproductive towards that end. IMHO, i don't profess to speak for Will, he does that quite well on his own.

now, what I WANT what is best for this nation and the world, i sincerely do. i do not know yet which candidate comes the closest to representing the policies that i feel will acheive this goal but i do know that all the dems are light years closer than the current admin and i will back whichever one comes out on top (holding nose for holy joe, tho.)

[Eloriel]

167. You saw Will's post as

a plea for us to debate their relative merits in a civil method

You're kidding, right?

Eloriel

[poskonig]

85. Fallacious. Groups are composed of *individuals*.

If some of the candidates running do not want my vote, it isn't my problem.

[mistertrickster]

99. Beautiful . . . that's what people brought up to believe that the

self is the be-all and the end-all ALWAYS say. You've read your Ayn Rand alright.

As an industrialist, you can jack up the price of fuel oil to the point where little children are freezing to death, and you have no problem with that because, hey that's capitalism and you're just doing what's in your own best interest.

Poison gas is a lot more profitable to make than raising wheat, so, again, if people get poisoned from the gas you make, it's not your fault. You're just making an honest dollar.

Remember, Harry Potter in "It's A Wonderful Life"--they're the little people, George, the garlic eaters, the suckers . . .

[poskonig]

191. Liberalism is *not* a space-monkey philosophy.

First off, Rand isn't even a serious philosopher, let alone a writer. *You* give her too much respect.

Secondly, that most cannot see the GOP is using war and the tax cuts to bankrupt social security and medicare is seriously disturbing. More war-mongering and insistence on tax cuts of any kind will make this possible future a reality. What difference will it make if I vote for the author of the Patriot Act and warmonger John Edwards, for instance? Oh, wait, I'm not supposed to think about the stuff that counts, only the superficial crap like 'mah daddy-was-a-millworker', 'I served in Vietnam', etc. etc.

My point was the idea of a 'group' is an abstraction. In conservativism Burke-style, the starting point is usually the nation, civilization, etc. In liberalism, the INDIVIDUAL is the basis point, and this is seen all the way back to Locke. Hence individuals have rights to x,y,z, etc. etc.

None of this has any bearing on why it is good for me to vote for more war, tax cutting, and loss of civil liberties. The good of the a specific political party isn't necessarily the good of a unitary citizen. This is why we have (gasp!) *elections*.

[Iris]

92. ok. So this is sort of like praying.

Instead of praying for something specific, pray for the right outcome.

Or something like that.

I just want a freakin' government that is open to reasonable discussion about important issues rather than polarized sound bites and name calling.

[Raven]

102. When you read this thread,

you know why we will loose the next election. Very sad. This country was about the "we", not the "I" and I'm afraid it's gone, gone, gone. Imagine! Having to delete posts on a thread that was talking about the collective good. Imagine.

[XanaDUer]

109. When was America ever consistantly about "we"

and not "I"?

I don't think this means a Dem won't win the election in '04, either.

That's sort of hyperbolic.

[Raven]

113. Not at all.

What I said was not meant as hyperbole. FDR was concerned about the many rather than the few...the "we" rather than the "I". Jimmy Carter was also concerned about the welfare of the many. JFK appealed to our sense of community in his inaguration speech..."ask not..." What is so difficult to understand about this? Is it just that you all can't stand the messenger? Because, he's right. We have to come together in order to beat the maniac -in - residence.

[ibegurpard]

122. Okay, that all sounds really great.

The next question is just what or who is it exactly we are supposed to "come together" around? I won't dispute that Bush is the worst thing to happen to this country in decades. But what's the best way to get rid of him? There are NINE candidates running. Who's got the best chance to beat him, let alone do what it takes to set this country back on the right track and restore some integrity to the Democratic party? WHO decides which one it is? What is the point of a pledge of unity at this point when there is still so much up in the air? I agree that a lot of these discussions could be MUCH more civil and I won't deny that I've played a part in some of the flamefests. But if Will thought that browbeating anyone was going to accomplish anything then he was mistaken.

[XanaDUer]

127. Saying I cannot stand the messenger is hyperbolic, too.

I just cannot stand the patronizing tone. It is presumptous to have a member (though he has an absolute right to post his opinions) start telling other members what is and is not proper posting material. And, we have the right to rebut it.


The politicians whom you named are not the "I"s, in the case we are discussing. Once the candidate is elected and becomes president, that candidate represents the "we" that the "I"s selected. In other words, let's take one of the examples you give, FDR: he DID a great deal for "we", but it was each individual "I" who decided to choose him for his own personal reasons. After the Depression, they were thinking of "I", of course. They selected the candidate who could do the most for them as individuals, and since there were so many "I"s having the same problem (Hoover),it appeared to be coming from the "we". that simply because the pressing issues of those I-people were pretty much the same, "I" looked like a "we".

This implies one solution: following this logic that he posted, it should be the DLC and the party to directly decide to choose one candidate and place this one candidate and all of the force of the party behind them , to defeat Bush. Is that what he is suggesting?

Thus, the "most electable" candidate would be the logical choice. I think that would cause as much, if not more, division than the current campaign process.

So, he can post, and only those who agree get to post on the thread?

Sounds like the post police again.

[Raven]

129. If you keep walking around in that circle

you are walking in, you'll surely get George W. elected again. You know what this is?... it's folks who don't like certain candidates and who don't like Will Pitt...pretty funny.... pick up your bases and the bats and the ball and go home...I've been involved in politics for 50 years and I have never seen anything so stupid, distructive...really. This is unprecedented in it's idiocy.

[Eloriel]

171. Well, Mom, you're not exactly an unbiased bystander

now, are you?

There may be a few people here at DU who honestly don't like Will Pitt. It happens. Few people in this world are universally liked.

But there are more of us who don't like Will Pitt's penchant for setting himself up as chief know-it-all and arbiter of what is right and good and proper in the world and MOST OF ALL, how the rest of us should act or think about this, that or anything.

And THAT penchant, which rears its ugly head every now and then like clockwork, MIGHT be why at least some don't like him at all, ever.

Too, for some here -- a pretty good number of people, actually -- Pitt can do NO wrong. The sycophants are nearly as nauseating as Pitt's high-horse routine.

Eloriel

[Alenne]

110. Will's post was about we

The thread turned into people's personal feelings about Will as it always does. It's the same people in almost every thread Will starts.

[Bake]

150. The whole problem is who gets to define the "we"

Liberals, and I consider myself one (with some reservations), are very good at sitting in their ivory towers defining what they think is best for everybody, and therefore what everybody "ought" to think. Will, you do NOT generally do that, and you are generally a voice of reason on DU and you know I love you, brother, and I am not going to personally attack you, Matcom, or anybody else on this thread. I just strongly disagree with you here, because as someone pointed out above, the way "we" arrive at the "we" is by the voicing of our individual opinions and desires in the big ol' marketplace of ideas. If in fact, what the ivory tower types determine to be the "greater good" is correct, then so be it. But the only way to find that out is to TEST IT in the heat of the campaign.

I can only surmise that the intent behind our original post, Will, was a desire to see more unity in the Democratic Party, and I will be the first to stand with you and say that is a GOOD THING. But this is primary season, dude, and we're the challengers. If this was a situation where President Gore was the incumbent running for re-election, you'd doubtless see a lot more unity here. But that's not where we are. We are EARLY in the political season, looking for our candidate and honing our message. That candidate and message will ultimately be the beneficiary of the present season of trial by fire.

Ultimately, if it's Kerry, or if it's Dean, or if it's Edwards, or Sharpton, or Gen. Clark, I promise you right now I will work my ass off to make sure OUR (at that point) -- OUR candidate kicks that Smirky Little SOB out of the White House.

But we're not there yet. I have reservations about Kerry. I have reservations about Dean. I have reservations about Clark (I don't know enough about him yet). I have reservations about the rest of the pack. I WANT -- and WE NEED -- to see them tested and refined in the fire of the campaign process. I have concerns about what OUR message should be, and how to communicate it to the vast masses of the electorate. The problem is NOT infighting among the activists -- thank goodness we HAVE them -- the problem is getting everybody ELSE to give a damn about OUR message and vote for whoever is ultimately OUR candidate.

So chill out, Will. Nobody's lost the 2004 election yet. The fact is, with the way things are going, this election is OURS TO WIN OR LOSE.

Bake

[kentuck]

103. Come together...

Right now...

[never cry wolf]

126. over WE n/t

[oasis]

157. chuckle, chuckle :-)

:-)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

108. ?

[Stuckinthebush]

111. Damn, Will...

When was the last time you had a thread that fell off with under 15 posts?

Oh....I agree with what you said. This "my candidate must..." shit has to stop.

ABB.

[Q]

116. "Fuck what you want."

- Right back at you.

- Explanation: Pitt somehow thinks he can be 'motivational' by using such phrases as 'fuck what you want'. Many of his posts...and this one in particular...are condescending and rude.

- Pitt obviously seems to think that he's some sort of siren song for Democracy. He's not...he's just as partisan as anyone else and has done his share of dividing and deriding of those who disagree with his rather shallow point of view.

- What his rant seems to be missing is that the Democratic party has changed and the type of 'unity' he requires doesn't account for the rightward shift and corporate pandering of many (new) Dem politicians.

- The next nominee will determine the direction of the party. We'll either stay the course as the party of people or become just like the GOP under the direct control of the corporations who literally own politicians and their legislation.

- I have no respect for you because you're among those who think we must go right to win or just don't give a shit that our party is being usurped by neocons in Democratic clothing. Maybe You will vote for Republican-lite in order to 'win'...but some of us have more respect for Democracy than THAT.

[neuvocat]

119. Amen

Fuck what you want.

[JVS]

125. Yes

Let him reap what he has sown.

[Stuckinthebush]

199. Sorry that you have no "respect" for me

Let's try to bring this back to a civil tone.

First - I don't play this pro-Pitt/anti-Pitt game. I know there are those that don't care for his posts, but that is their issue, not mine.

Now, the original poster has a good point although he does say it in a rather non-civil manner. I find that pulling Democrats and Progressives together to defeat a common enemy is like herding cats. I, like others, have my own issues that I want addressed by the eventual nominee. Some issues I feel very, very strongly about. I am also pragmatic about this presidential election.

There is a Democratic Hierarchy of Needs. Much like Maslow's Hierarchy, the most basic needs must be met before the others can be addressed. In our case, the most basic need is to be in control of the agenda.

Let's face it, a candidate that appeals to the most progressive, left leaning policies that we all hold dear will have a very, very difficult time getting swing voters in this race. This country has moved so right since Reagan, that the center is actually pretty right. We can't do a damn thing about that in the short term. What we have to do is get power, and start moving the debate back towards the left.

Do I like Lieberman? Hell no. I think he is a DINO on many issues. Will I vote for him if he gets the nomination? Hell yes. Here is why:

Mr. Lieberman is not loved by the Republicans. Therefore, he has only one base - the Democrats. Mr. Lieberman must take that base into consideration during all of his decisions or he becomes a one-term president. He knows this. So, if he gets into power (which will not happen), then it is up to the base to keep his mind on what is important to us. Even though Mr. Lieberman is a right of center person, we can make sure that his policies are center to center left. Sure, we would like all of his policies to be far left, but that's not going to happen.

Let's look at reality. Lieberman doesn't have a chance because he doesn't appeal to the base right now. I just used him as an illustration. Dean, Kerry, (Clark), and Graham all have qualities that appeal to the base and to swing voters. These guys are more center to center left in their ideologies. If one of these guys gets in, then he will work with the base to address the issues that concern the base.

The reality is that if we reject an eventual democratic candidate because he or she doesn't pass all of our individual litmus tests, then Bush wins. I don't know about you, but I find this to be the worst possible outcome. Bush will continue to destroy all of the progress made by our party, and he will do it with glee. A Lieberman wouldn't.

So, your high minded ideals surrounding a "respect for Democracy" are admirable. However, there is a time for pushing these ideals, and there is a time for meeting our number one need - gain control of the agenda. A myopic attention to progressive ideals will ensure that we don't meet that need.

The most unacceptable outcome of the 2004 election is if Bush wins another four years.

[KaraokeKarlton]

124. Looks like Mr. Pitt has pissed in all kinds of cheerios...

if all those deleted messages are any indication. Come on people...calm down. Will is right...and I suspect he was simply telling people that it's MORE important to exhibit some unity and respect for one another than it is to get your own damn way. Everyone thinks their chosen candidate is the best...and that's all good an well, but in the end, everyone needs to unite against Bush. There's more at stake here than just electing who we want. We HAVE to get rid of Bush and fix the mess we're now in. Whoever gets nominated, we ALL need to quit the bitching, pissing and moaning and support that person for the better of our country...even IF we wanted someone else.

Leave "We-Willie" alone, dammit!

[neuvocat]

128. Stick around a little while longer

and see what you think when these kinds of posts tell people how they should conduct themselves-lest they irk John Ashcroft and he shuts the site down.

[Walt Starr]

133. Oh yeah? Well fuck what you want!

I'm an American with a sacred responsibility I take seriously. I find Bush completely unacceptable, ergo I will not vote for him. If I find the Democratic candidate unacceptable, I won't vote for that fuck either!

edited to clarify

[Terwilliger]

140. the Democratic?

that's taking the whole "Democrat/Democratic" thing a bit far, isn't it?

[Walt Starr]

141. Sorry, left out the word "candidate"

I fixed it though.

[DemLikr]

144. Can't I all just get along...?

What a joy to watch a flame war from the sidelines...though I think my eyebrows are getting singed just from reading this thread.

[JVS]

147. We guess not.

Evidently "I" is not supposed to be in our vocabulary.

[Northwind]

155. Heh

That made me laugh out loud....

[Must_B_Free]

154. I TOTALLY AGREE, WILL

"Fuck what you want."

EXACTLY - it's all about what I WANT, so FUCK WHAT YOU WANT!

:)

Seriously; if I may quote Jah Bunny Wailer:

In the beginning, there was but one concept,
And that's the concept of I.
Then arose Apollyon, the Devil
- Satan! Satan! -
claiming that it's you and I.
And from that day on,
There was trouble in the world,
And the world goin' astray.

...
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/davebulow/wow/lyrics_bunny_wailer_-_armageddon.htm

[PATRICK]

158. How about getting that to the masses?

The problem last election was that the common people were herded along according to issues and then personalities in ways that hoodwinked them on both. The issue factor was a nearly pointless exchange of shopping lists and presentation. For those who thought the American people were too cynical for that stuff it was very reassuring to campaign managers and news pundits to be able bury the facts in fluff to push Bush on lies, giveaways and "points".

Politics is not a sporting event, it is life and death. With Bush it is death- all death and perhaps definitively death. Assorted flavors of sanity gaming on the borders of irrelevancy can be about death too simply by abdication of common sense and focus. "We" do not even exist in the current order of things except as victims. To get back to the civilized game or political issue jousting we have first to get the country back- if we ever really had "it" in the first place. Out of the hands of the Big Lie and monsters.

There is everything right about enthusiasm, discussion, differences and promotion- so long as you remember we are in a lifeboat not on a playground. Letting the poison in no matter how much good water is in the solution will sicken and kill. Humans can forego thirst for a reason.

People are afraid that first things first won't solve the problems. Of course not. What standard of perfection or what Messiah will? First thing is to win the war against oligarchy and the neocon ideologues, the crooks, the killers, the plunderers. Then win the peace. Then hash out reasoned differences in competitive reason, not Manichean self-destruction. Because the natural world won't wait for humanity to get it's act together forever.

None of DU is that bad, the spirit is saintly compared to FR, but it must be good enough to win survival. Bad times.

[Name removed]

160. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coffee Coyote]

161. predictable overreactions by the purists

My take is that Pitt was attacking the sanctimonious purist creeps who pollute this board like arsenic in Houston's drinking water. The kind of poster who screams, "I agree with Dean on 99% of the issues, but as governor of Vermont, he once voted against increasing the fine for jaywalking in Montpelier, so I CAN'T SUPPORT HIM!!! My precious principles would be compromised!!" Or, "John Kerry once used Hunt's Ketchup, so he MUST be a phony!! I now have to vote for Clark!!" :eyes:

As someone who had his fair share of public disagreements with Will, I can say that I LOVED watching him piss some of you off with this one. The responses were predictable to a poster.

The American Cult of ME is a disease. Not even the "good liberals" of DU are immune to its toxic powers.

[neuvocat]

162. So people who disagree are purists, huh?

Wake up. We've got people on this board who can vote for anyone they choose. You want to bring up the "purist" assumption then you've just painted someone with a broad brush.

People have their reasons for not voting for someone. All of a sudden they get marginalized as being a "purist". What a load of crap.

If someone doesn't like Kerry for his vote on Iraq, then fine. Just acknowledge that said person may have a different opinion than yours or someone else's. Don't go after them and call them unrealistic or "purist". I may vote for Clark or Dean. Should I expect to be called a "purist" for not voting for someone else? No, but given this kind of post it sure looks like it.

Posts like this that have openly excluded large groups of people for any number of reasons, ranging from their opinions to their participation in a number of discussions. Some people apparently can't just ignore or tolerate what's being mentioned someplace, so the accusations are made to silence them.

This is typical of that kind of formulaic posting that's been going on for years. Pitt has been the only one to do so here.

[WilliamPitt]

163. The only one mentioning Kerry

is you. I never did. That was not the point.

[neuvocat]

182. He isn't the only one I've mentioned.

But he might as well be as far as you're concerned.

[Coffee Coyote]

164. say whut?

It isn't those who disagree with him, it's those who get OVERLY indignant (like you did, wasting your breath on a long-winded reply to me - you must like the smell of your own farts) because it was SUGGESTED that maybe, just MAYBE there is a point where... oh hell, I don't like to smell my farts, so I am stopping.

[Eloriel]

172. well, if that's what he meant, he really ought to have said

something a little more like that, wouldn't you agree? Especially since he's a WRITER, fer cryin' outloud.

Eloriel

[neuvocat]

183. No shit.

You'd figure an english teacher would have a better grasp at expressing ideas via the written word.

[Generic Other]

166. Ideological masturbation melted my snowflake

I'm just one drop of water trying to find the river.

[redeye]

168. Ok, so let me get something straight

I should vote what other people think, not what I think? I have one vote in 12 million in this state and I intend to use it on what I think is important. And if you and other patriots have a problem with that, you can go to hell.

[WilliamPitt]

169. No

I'm not saying that. But in deciding who to vote for, please consider the importance of "We" in the transaction. "We" involves sacrifice, and perhaps a second thought. This applies no matter who is on the ballot, and no matter whom you prefer. This is not a message in advocacy for any one candidate. It is a message in advocacy for all of them.

[JVS]

174. That is certainly a much better tone than "Fuck what you want"

So, why did you use such inflammatory language? Wasn't that flame-baiting?

[WilliamPitt]

175. Sometimes I use a scalpel

Sometimes I use a broadsword. I'm upset enough about all of this to have pulled out the broadsword on this one. I'm pleased with the results, and be damned to hurt feelings. Lotsa people here like to talk about politics as a contact sport. I throw a prety good roundhouse when the mood strikes.

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JVS]

178. You keep up this broadsword shit and the patient will die

[WilliamPitt]

179. DU? Die? Unlikely.

It'll go on and on and on exactly as it is now. It is campaign season, untested waters for this forum. To date, it has dealt poorly.

[JVS]

180. Not DU, the democratic candidate

Your tactic was disruptive and rude, and probably served more to alienate possible voters than attract any. Write a few books in the tine of your post and go around promoting them and you'll be a boon to 3rd parties.

[JVS]

181. And another thing. If you were a new poster a stunt like this would ....

have gotten you tombstoned. You are a rather big fish in this pond. If all the big fish were to act like you did tonight I have no doubt that DU would be destroyed.

[ibegurpard]

186. "To date, it has dealt poorly"

If, as you say, campaign season is untested waters for this forum what is your frame of reference for saying that it is not dealing exactly the way it should? Arriving at a "we" is going to be a long, painful process that will produce many scars. Trying to manufacture a false "we" this early is simply going to inflame the resentment that many feel at a party and candidates they perceive to have betrayed them. The infighting is (among candidates), in my opinion, already helping to shape many of them in ways to become more acceptable to all of us.
I agree, however, that many of us could be nicer to each other on the forums.

[neuvocat]

184. More like flailing a garden rake inside a greenhouse.

Great work.

[Forkboy]

185. It's not a roundhouse

more like a kidney punch.From behind.

[Lady President]

170. The "wants" give us passion to fight

I'm the millionth poster on this thread and I can understand if you've abandoned this thread, but I'll toss in my two cents.

I can see your basic premise. I am knowledgeable enough about politics to know that I'll never see an ideal candidate. For instance, I am very opposed to capital punishment, but I will vote for a pro-death penalty candidate, if I agree with the rest of their platform.

However, it is important to remember that our "wants" lead us to passionately supporting an individual or an idea. Personally, I don't have health care. I want a candidate that will address the problems of the uninsured. I believe that WE need health care reform. My personal experience may be making see one of my "wants" as a "need" for the entire country. It is certainly making me better read, more informed, and more demanding of a candidate. On the other hand, I was lucky to attend good schools. Logically, I know that education reform is also needed, but I don't have the same obsessive drive for this issue. Everyone's individual "wants" is what creates advocates, civic leaders, and makes this place very interesting.

I think merely being democrats makes it fairly evident that we all believe in "we."

[WilliamPitt]

173. we all believe in "we."

I think we all like to think we believe in "We," that this is our cred and sword and shield. But I've also done a tour of progressive organizations all across this country - vets groups, labor organizations, peace and justice groups in Nantucket and New Hampshire and Philadelphia and northern and southern California and Denver and Phoenix and Montana and Seattle in the last month and a half - and the "We" is there, but terribly affected by good progressives whose advocation for one narrow battleground keeps them from the "We" concept.

Conservatives are actually way, way better at "We." They do it without thinking, and they march in locked step with dizzying discipline. Their "We" is far, far, far less inclusive and more dangerous...but their "We" is actually effective. We talk about being "We," but all too often our own grinding axe cuts the wrong way.

[oasis]

176. DU: A Rainbow Coalition of the Unwilling

:-(

[Zuni]

187. Will--you are right

everyone here needs to back whatever Democrat wins the Primary in 2004. To do otherwise would doom us for another 4 years of Bushco.

[Spentastic]

189. Finally

William Pitt fucks it up.

This is quite simply unadultarated patronising, self aggrandising tripe.

"This is about the entire country, a lot of which does not think or believe as you do. Face it."

Yeah it is. It's about a country where a fair proportion of the people believe that Central America means Kansas. The task facing progressives is awesome in scope. Corporate control of the media is almost absolute. The most corrupt government ever is in danger of plunging the world into chaos. I live in the U.K and whilst I'm appalled Bush is still in power I'm glad to see passionate people advocating candidacys that really matter to them. You on the other hand seem to wish to become a commisar.

Of course compromise is necessary but the lengths to which the "I" should be sacrificed is entirely arguable. Otherwise why not just vote for Bush? It seems enough Americans like him. Will why don't you just join in with the Republican fantasy. You're just ruining it by thinking about yourself.

Fuck what you want.

[ulysses]

190. ok, putting aside

the thoroughly annoying tone you took here...

You have a point, but there are a couple of problems. First of all, who sets the agenda? The point of the party, any party, is not to redefine itself constantly by whichever way the wind is blowing in the center of the spectrum but rather to define what it wants to do (usually done by those horrifying activist elites in the party, the ones doing the leg work) and then convince enough of the rest of the country to win. The GOP does the latter. We have been doing the former.

Secondly, the activists you're so eloquently telling to fuck off here, by and large, "want" things *that are in the interest of the community*. Progressives don't advocate things that will cost tax money because they enjoy paying taxes, but because those things are seen as necessary to a functioning and civil society. If they're wrong about something then make your case, but enough of the "sit down and shut up" business, 'k?

Finally, as long as we're "fucking" things, how about "fuck telling people that their long-considered goals and positions are ideological masturbation"? We're not suffering from an overabundance of ideology in America, but from the politics of meaninglessness pioneered by Ronald Reagan and refined for use in my goddamned party by Al From.

[buddhamama]

196. the 'i' is 'we'

when i speak of what 'i' want, it's out of selfishness but love and compassion. i haven't come to my 'choices' haphazardly. a lot of thought and analysis has gone into my 'choices'.

if no one cares what i want, why should care what others want?

this isn't about me or you or them.

but, if this is really about 'we' than my voice counts as much as any other.

btw,imho,i think too many people have lost sight of the fact that we are still in the primary season. the do or die attitude needs to stop. beyond reason i remain optimistic and open minded.

[Walt Starr]

197. Just a bit of criticism, Will

This is the worst thing you have ever written, IMO.

[CWebster]

200. Pitt

You are becoming shrill. A man of your talents and capabilities shouldn't waste them on this bitter complaint.

As if you didn't have your own reasons to want what you want.

So, did Kerry ever get back to you about that interview--or was only Dean willing to stoop to our level?

Climb out of that hole you recently have slipped into.

[Q]

201. Jesus...for a while I thought we had been overrun by Stepford Dems...

...but looking over the thread this morning shows me that Pitt indeed did get the lectures he so richly deserved.

- I admire Pitt for his ability to turn out political screeds at a rate that would make Stephen King envious...but he's got this 'ego' thing that always gets in the way of his responsibility to his readers.

- Perhaps Pitt now understands that 'organizing' Democrats is much like herding cats. Lefties just don't respond very well to this type of bullying and disregard for their individualism.

[CWebster]

204. Heh-heh

I (ooops, I said I) didn't read the rest of the thread...did they really give it to him?

Its that youthful exuberance, ya know ;-)

[salmonhorse]

203. Whatever you say ~

[Fescue4u]

205. Yea, that Democracy thing is bad isn't it????

Sorry, Democracy is ALL about voting for what you want.

[Mike_from_NoVa]

206. got to disagree with this post

Pitt...

The election process is indeed about what I want. The percentage that it is about what I want may be infintessimal, but it is technically about what I want. You are correct that it is also about the entire country's needs. But there's no either/or. Both "subjects", the individual and the collective, the I and the We, can happily (if paradoxically) coexist in a definition of the meaning of the election process.

Furthermore, I am as important to the entire electorate as the snowflake is to the avalanche. And as long as I retain my individual snowflake-nesses and we reatin our collective avalance-potential, I *and* We can be simultaneously involved and dangerous.

The sand on a beach metaphor, on the other hand, is not useful. Sand on a beach gets pushed around by the tides - I want to be part of the avalanche that buries these goons, not be pushed around.

I sense, in your unwillingness to embrace the paradoxes inherent in the election process, a desire for something more simple than what we've got. Like the complexity of it all is pissing you off? Like you prefer caucuses to primaries? Maybe a little of your own personal "'I Want' Syndrome" rearing its head? Maybe your characterization of this "'I Want' Syndrome" is simply a failed trial baloon, a little public "ideological masturbation" of your own?

But keep trying, your writing is entertaining and intellectually engaging and you should never ever even consider shutting up.

[newyawker99]

209. I am locking this thread.

As you can see several personal attacks have been removed from this thread. Please read the rules:

PERSONAL ATTACKS, CIVILITY, AND RESPECT

The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, many of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules don't forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.

Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other members of this discussion board.

If you are going to disagree with someone, please stick to the message rather than the messenger. For example, if someone posts factually incorrect information, it is appropriate to say, "your facts are wrong," but it is not appropriate to say "you are a liar."

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, troll, conservative, Republican, or FReeper. Do not try to come up with cute ways of skirting around the spirit of this rule. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post so the moderators can deal with it. Unfortunately, it has become all too common for members of this message board to label anyone with a slightly different point of view as a disruptor. We disapprove of this behavior because its intent is to stifle discussion, enforce a particular "party line," and pre-emptively label a particular point of view as inappropriate or unwelcome. This makes thoughtful and open debate virtually impossible.

Democratic Underground is a "big tent" message board which welcomes a broad range of progressive opinions. As such, you are likely to disagree strongly with many of the comments you see expressed here. Please do not take these differences of opinion personally. The simple fact that someone disagrees with you does not give you the right to lash out and break the rules of this message board. A thick skin is usually required to participate on this or any message board.

Please note that, strictly speaking, sweeping statements about entire groups of fellow progressives are not considered personal attacks. However, they are often inflammatory and counterproductive and the moderators have broad discretion to remove such posts in the interests of keeping the peace on the message board.

There is a difference between forceful advocacy for a particular issue (which is allowed), and personally attacking people (which is forbidden). If you can't tell the difference, you are likely to get into trouble here.

Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not start a new discussion thread with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member. Do not use your signature line to draw negative attention to another member of the board.

If you just don't like someone, please be aware that you have the option of putting that person on your ignore list. Just click on the appropriate icon on one of that person's posts.

We do not typically delete threads which many members may consider to be "flamebait." However, the administrators will occasionally remove threads which we arbitrarily consider too rhetorically hot or too inflammatory. Please use good judgment when starting threads; inflammatory rhetoric does not normally lead to productive discussion.

If you are the type of person who just can't get along with other people, and if you seem to repeatedly cause trouble, eventually we will decide that your presence is a disruption and we will ban you. It doesn't matter if you are a progressive or a long-term member of this board.

There are no exceptions to these civility rules. You cannot attack someone because they attacked you first, or because that person "deserved it," or because you think someone is a disruptor. We consider it a personal attack to call a liar a liar, to call a moron a moron, or to call a jerk a jerk.

For detailed information about how we enforce our personal attacks rule, please read "What is a Personal Attack?"


http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#civility


NYer99
DU Moderator