Simple thoughts about working together.

[rbnyc]

I have a friend who supports a candidate that he thinks can win, who also represents many of his values, not perfectly, but in a way that's comfortable for him. He is admittedly pragmatic. He values a degree of predictability that his candidate can win. He thinks that it would be foolhardy to nominate a candidate that doesn't display the kind of predictability that he values.

I support a candidate whom you cannot mention without hearing the word unelectable within 2 minutes. I support this candidate because I appreciate his voice, and I think that things are increased when you pay attention to them and apply effort. I spend effort on things I want to increase. I value a candidate's capacity to endorse my values as a first priority. I'm an admitted idealist.

I've been afraid to talk to my friend about my candidate because I don't want him to judge me. So of course I had to ask myself, do I judge him?

If he were to come up to me and tell me all about his candidate and why he deserves the nomination, would I tell him that he was wrong, that he had the wrong values?

Then I asked myself, if he were to tell me that I had the wrong values, what would I say? I'd say, I have to represent who I am. This is my voice. This is my role, my job to keep these little weeds alive, to make sure they are saved for the civilization of tomorrow.

So again, if I told him that his values were wrong, what would I expect him to say? I would expect him to say that this was his job, his role, to make sure that we have some tools, some power, some say.

We so obviously have to work together. We so obviously have to respect each other's strengths, exploit what each person has to add.

I'm not afraid to talk to my friend about our differences anymore. I think I'll be able to do a better job, and take any criticism better after working out these simple thoughts in this post.

Thanks.

[Gingersnap]

1. thanks for the thoughtful post

:kick:

[soupkitchen]

2. How did the party go?

Start a thread

[Padraig18]

3. Great post!

As Ben Franklin said, "We must hang together, for we shall assuredly hang separately." Everyone here must understand that we don't all believe in some rigid political cathecism, and that all 'heresy' must be punished. Our party is broad in terms of it's beliefs on a variety of issues, and the 'ideal' party that many envision is no more than a creature of myth which never in fact existed anywhere but in our own minds. We have ALWAYS been the most inclusive party, with liberal, moderate and conservative members, and we MUST be tolerant of the diversity within our ranks.

So, go talk to your friend--- he may surprise you. :hi:

[rbnyc]

4. Thanks so much.

And thanks for the perfect quote.

:hi:

[LWolf]

5. A gifted "uniter" speaks.

Thank you.

:hi: :hug:

[rbnyc]

6. Wow. Thanks.

I'm blushing now.

I thought this thread would die in 2 minutes.

:)

[Padraig18]

7. Kick

:kick:

[zeemike]

8. I agree

We should all be willing to work together, but not just to defeat the evil bushman, but also to build a better world.
My hope would be that all 10 of the candidates would sit down together and hammer out a platform that they all could agree on. This would assure people that no matter which one was selected that they could have a minimum assurance that the policies that are talked about will actually be implemented.
It would make me feel better about the system.

[Rowdyboy]

9. When people tell you your candidate is "unelectable"

just ignore them. That's the reason for primaries-to let the grassroots vote their hearts. There's nothing wrong with supporting a losing primary candidate. My personal record:

1) 1976 Fred Harris-lost the nomination
2) 1984 Gary Hart-lost the nomination
3) 1988 Al Gore-lost the nomination
4) 1992 Bill Clinton ****ding ding ding ding****
5) 2000 Al Gore (even a stopped clock is right twice a day)
6) 2004 Wes Clark (with my track record, he should be :scared: )

My point is, follow your instincts and vote in the primary for whoever inspires you most. And don't worry about what anyone thinks.

[rbnyc]

10. Thanks for that.

I really appreciate your post.

[Rowdyboy]

12. I can also honestly say that the vote I am proudest of was

Fred Harris in 1976. It was a caucus and I had to sit in a smokey room for 4 hours on a Saturday to do it-he was a very progressive senator from Oklahoma married to a Cherokee activist.

[SWPAdem]

11. Very well put

I suspect that most pragmatists have a touch of the idealist in them and vice versa. I doubt that your friend will sit in judgement if you present your case in the same manner as you have here.

[quaker bill]

13. Vote your conscience

Ideological differences are amplified here and at times like these.

Truth be told we have the right set of values and broadly agree on the greater number of things and in the broader principles. We differ in how to best implement them and the extent and pace of their implementation.

Should we eliminate all of the * tax cut or portions of the * tax cut?

Bush* Iraq policy is bad. Fatally flawed from the start, just poorly executed, or somewhere in between?

Bush* is bad for the environment. In every way or just most of the things he has done?

We all agree that fundamental change is needed we just differ on who would be best suited to get it done.

[rbnyc]

18. I agree.

We are a very diverse party, but we're not that far apart.

:)

[Padraig18]

21. Bingo!

:thumbsup: We cannot lose sight of the forest for the trees. EVERY Democrat I know, be they liberal, moderate or conservative and regardless of which candidate they prefer agree that * has messed this country up in a BIG way! Their individual ideas on precisely how to correct a given problem or set of problems are as diverse as the party itself, but there is NO fundamental disagreement that the problems MUST be solved, and *'s policies reversed. Additionally, EVERY Democrat I know will support whichever candidate gets the nomination, even if it is not their favored candidate. That, rather than the 'my way or the highway' is what all TRUE Democrats believe. :)

[rhite5]

14. Thanks for this thread, rbnyc.

I had been looking for an appropriate place to talk about working together and continuing to respect each other when we have come to different conclusions about which candidate to support.

I have an acquaintance from another forum that I have always respected and enjoyed political discussion with. I have always considered her intelligent and reasonable and well-informed. She and I both became interested in one particular candidate some time ago for all the right reasons.

As we learned more we each came to a very different conclusion.

I still consider her intelligent, reasonable and well-informed (I hope/think she thinks the same of me) I KNOW she and I share most of the same values and clearly agree on who and what the real enemy is. I KNOW in the end, when push comes to shove, we will link arms and back each other up against that real enemy.

In the meantime we are each campaigning hard for a different candidate, each in our own way.

[union_maid]

15. Excellent post!

And let's keep in mind, even with the occasional sniping, each of the candidates are campaigning more against Bush than each other every time they speak out. I continue to be very impressed with the field. If it doesn't degrade significantly, I think they're doing a great job of putting forth their ideas while hammering home the most important idea of all which is the defeat of W. It seems to me that if they can do that, we should be able to do the same.

[rbnyc]

19. Good point.

Yes, I love it when they use the debate format to work together to slam Bush.

[MuseRider]

16. Great post!

Thanks rbnyc. Respect for anothers opinions and values was the first thing we lost here on this board. I see it coming back and posts like yours will only encourage more of it. We may agree for the moment on our candidate of choice but I promise to respect your values if either of us change.

[Rowdyboy]

17. I believe Rene deserves a kick

:kick: for one of the best threads I've read in a while

[rbnyc]

20. Wow. Thanks much! (nt)

[Tigerlily]

22. Beautifully said, rbnyc

It doesn't have to be either/or right now. We all have something to add to the "information pool". :)

[rasputin1952]

23. Sounds to me...

like you have everything pretty well under control.

Not too much to worry about, all of us feel we are, "correct in our thinking"; but in reality, the vast majority take little time or effort to see why they believe as the do. It is always easier to follow than lead.

If you ever feel your "core values" are threatened, just remember who you are, and why you believe as you do. You will re-enforce why you believe the way you do, (or possibly revise your priorities), in either case, it make you a stonger person.

Your eloquence was a breath of fresh air, and you post was wonderful.

:hi:

[rbnyc]

25. Thanks.

I've spent so much time here talking about the electability issue and the pragmatism v. idealism issue and I have a very strong opinion. But that doesn't mean that my pragmatic friends don't have something to add. And if I realize that they have something to add, they may realize what I have to add.

[rasputin1952]

27. You are on the road...

to becoming a very wise person.

;-)

[Speed8098]

24. Good Post

:kick:

:toast:

[JohnKleeb]

26. Renee that was great

Thank you, I feel like that sometimes too.