I'm getting a purely selfish kick out of the ANSWER fracas

[jpgray]

Because now our long-standing purity debate has come full circle. Avoiding ANSWER-sponsored events because one disagrees with a few of their views is the flip-side of abandoning the Democratic Party because most of the standard bearers hold disagreeable views from a leftist point of view. Two sides of the same coin, and both make sense in a small way--it seems right not to associate oneself even indirectly with abhorrent views, whether it be stalwart support for North Korea on one side or waffly support for the Iraq authorization on the other.

But at the same time in both places here are organizations that are able to make things happen, where good can be done in a small way when you and I participate, even if it can't be done in the best way. That so many far leftists see that so clearly in the case of ANSWER and miss it completely with regards to the Democratic Party seems as ridiculous to me as when moderate Democrats see and miss the opposite. You have to ask yourself if the positive overall effect your participation could have is worth indirect involvement with views that are anathema for you--in the case of electing Democratic representatives in place of Republicans or providing an antiwar march (even under ANSWER auspices) with the publicity boost of a hundred plus thousand people in attendance, I'd say it is. I guess some disagree.

[Hissyspit]

1. I participated. Despite ANSWER.

But they killed the energy and they diluted and took advantage and caused disorganization.
So criticism is valid AND participation is valuable.

But I would think that, with all this out on the Internet, if ANSWER primarily sponsors another march/event, it will have less attendance.

How this parallels our relationships with the Democratic Party... Well, discuss.

[jpgray]

2. That criticism is valid should go without saying

But when I see snark like "well then stay the fuck home" or something in response to ANSWER criticism it just reminds me gleefully of the "well go vote for Nader, fuckwit" mentality that was -so- beautifully productive for Democrats in 2000 and 2004. :crazy:

[Hissyspit]

4. I am one who SCREAMED for friends not to vote for Nader in 2000

"Yes, the Democrats are bad," I would say "and NO, they are not as bad as the Republicans." Vote Democrat.

I realized there would be the usual ANSWER fracas over the march, and yes, I went anyway, but I also stood in the audience and when the third or fourth pro-Palestinian speaker came up, watched as the crowd dispersed and I found myself saying "Oh, come on..." You're killing the momentum.

When Nader came up to speak, I was so "That's o.k. Ralph. Thanks but no, thanks." I'm going to go march.

[Ignoramus]

3. Mega-dildos rush...

Or whatever the phrase is to express agreement here.

I keep thinking of the problem people have with the idea of giving birth control to kids. You have to grasp the idea that the kids are going to have sex anyway, and do something practical about it. Keeping condoms from them, doesn't cause them to not have sex.

The analogy is that ANSWER is going to have sex anyway, so let's give them condoms rather than letting them show up pregnant on CSPAN.

[deek]

7. valid analogy eom

.

[Guaranteed]

5. Screw the DLC, and screw ANSWER.

There IS a middle-ground between these two extremes in our party. We need to find it and strengthen it.

[bpilgrim]

6. "That so many far leftists see that so clearly"

I mentioned this 'dilemma' the other day but i find it more interesting that the ones attacking the International Answer Coalition are often the ones crying most loudly for loyalty to all Dem's no matter what and then have the nerve to shout out their single issue disputes with the anti-war protest movement and therefore refuse to attended :eyes:

i am an avg. american, who has always voted dem and volunteered to help during the campaigns but on DU i often get painted as a 'far left' communist, etc. who doesn't have a right to criticize :crazy:

anyways, if the folks criticizing answer were doing it from the inside and not calling for boycotts and ultimatums i would have a lot more sympathy for them, otherwise they are just furthering the neoCONs agenda wether they know it or not.


more...
http://GlobalFreePress.com

peace

[jonnyblitz]

8. but ANSWER folks aren't elected officials like the DINOs are..

if we support DINOS (who far lefties like me complain about and demand "purity" from)and they win, they are in a position to vote against our interests. whatever bullshit ANSWER believes in, well, they aren't politicians who vote on legislation.

so i don't quite agree with your analogy..but i did think it ironic the types that call far lefties purists are the ones demanding purity from the groups sponsoring the protest.

[jpgray]

11. It's true that is a serious difference

I wouldn't try to argue it's the exact same dynamic in both cases. But giving up some of your pride in order that some incremental good is done I think is characteristic of both situations. Yeah, a self-serving corporate stooge like Biden is someone I have nothing but contempt for, but if I had the ablity to replace a Frist with a Biden I would do it in a heartbeat despite my personal hatred for the guy's manner and politics. In the same way, I would willingly march with people bearing pro North Korea signs in an antiwar march if I thought it would do even the slightest bit of good for the broader antiwar effort. The alternative would be sitting home and having no impact on the event at all, just as in the other case the alternative would be a wholly nasty Republican rather than a comparatively less nasty Democrat. Obviously valid criticisms are out there about each group on this site--it's the "if you have problems with it then fuck off" mentality I'm not too keen on, because that attitude hasn't done the Democrats much good with regads to leftist support.

[enigmatic]

9. It's hilarious

And it is two sides of the same coin. It's also the same two sides who battle each other routinely here, while the rest just watch and wonder WTF this is accomplishing.

[Guaranteed]

10. There are a lot of folks in between them, but they're not

vocal enough.

The whores have more or less been driven out of DU over the past year or so. But now it's the crazies.

We all used to get hit from the right. Now the left is raining down on us.

It'll probably swing back the other way, in due time- my guess is in probably another couple of years. Then we'll get another few months of "just right" porridge, before slinking into our hidey holes again.

[jpgray]

12. I think the "WTF is this accomplishing" bloc is pretty large on DU

:hi:

[Guaranteed]

13. I disagree. I think

both "sides"- or extremes, rather- need to get beaten down.

We don't need to be swinging back and forth like this. We need some consistency- some solid, *reasonable* principles to hold true to, across the board.

Both sides, in my opinion, violate them- but for different reasons, it seems. One out of political expediency and cowardice, and the other...well, there are probably a lot of reasons for the other side taking the positions that they do, but few of those reasons seem to be reality-based.

And it just turns into gang warfare. Nothing gets accomplished.

Both sides have characteristics that the other side desperately needs. And they beat on each other constantly out of- well, jealously, I guess? They'll never stop, either.

I don't know, but I'm sick of it.

We DO need to stick together, but not on either of those sides. They're both political losers. Both sides need to pull themselves together.

We need leaders and constituents with courage AND sensibility. We can't just have one or the other, or a split party.

[jpgray]

14. I think the internet in general tends to radicalize

The most popular threads are usually the sustained arguments between those two sides--a sensible post that no one really disagrees with isn't going to promote the attention or longevity of a chemtrail post, or a post that says Lieberman is the man for '08. That doesn't meant the internet community doesn't value sensible posts--they just don't draw any attention. So DU probably seems at first glance much nuttier than it is in terms of its members' majority views.

The problem is a lot of the "middle" folks you speak of are -not- willing to devote six or seven years to building a political organization, and working their way up the power structure of local/state/national politics. It's hard work and not very rewarding, so usually we middlers mill about on the outskirts of the work we do in our normal lives for something to latch onto, whereas the crazies and sell-outs have plenty of motivation to work that hard, from neuroses and greed alike. But those leaders with courage and sensibility aren't likely to be created by our present system--when most people give in to apathy and say the system doesn't represent them, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you don't participate, how can you expect that the system will ever represent you?

[NMMNG]

15. I refuse to reply to this thread

Because I don't like the picture in your sigline. ;-)



Edit to add winking smiley, so that joviality was obvious.

[jpgray]

16. I actually did a Lounge poll to see if the nudity would offend anybody

:D