|
Edited on Wed Apr-26-06 05:28 PM by welshTerrier2
One thing we all have in common is that we're all DU'ers ... some days i just take this place for granted ... you click a link, bring up a page, read a little, spout a few opinions, get bashed a bit, get a recommend or two ... go away ... come back tomorrow ... same thing ...
but really, thinking that most of us often engage here with our deepest thoughts and passions, most of us strangers in some sense, is nothing short of remarkable ... each of us sees the world a little differently and yet we come here to contribute toward some purpose in some way ...
and DU has grown and grown from its wacky infancy into a growing political force ... of course, it's not just DU; surely we are part of something larger ... we are part of something not yet well-defined ... make no mistake about it though, from all this chaos eminates a genuine threat to the realm ... there is no doubt our presence has become known to them ...
so to all DU'ers, my hardiest congratulations ... keep it up; do it more; do it even better ... we're scaring 'em ...
now, as to what we're doing and how we're doing it, we need to aspire to dialog and consensus building in a more effective manner ... we're never going to have agreement on each issue or even any issue for that matter ... but we spin our wheels more than need be ... positions harden and no path to truce is sought ... all would benefit from greater unity ...
and so here is what i propose ... I see two key areas of conflict on DU ... one seems to be between those who see themselves as pragmatists who are willing to overlook certain deficiencies or disagreements with our candidates to get rid of bush and the neo-cons and restore the party to power ... their view is that regaining control must be the first step before any progress on anything can be made ... the second group, often labeled "the left" for some reason beyond my comprehension, is frustrated with what they see as a "win at any cost; finger in the air" politically motivated agenda ... their view is that if the party condones candidates that don't represent their deeply held beliefs, we will never see any progress whether Democrats return to power or not ...
so, conflict one is between these two competing belief systems ...
and how does this conflict manifest itself on DU? ummmm, poorly? yeah, very poorly ... we all should realize that unity is ultimately necessary for either camp to succeed ... the reality is that we need each other but can't get past our differences to form the necessary teamwork ... the result is endless flaming threads and lots of bashing ... we can do better with one simple change in method ...
here's my proposal ... the "support the ticket and we'll fix it later" crowd needs to show far more respect for those being discriminated against, those who have in many ways internalized the madness of this war, and those who genuinely do not believe the party is willing to stand up to the tough challenges and start representing them ... respect the passion of these people; don't insult them ... these are passionate warriors; enlist them don't alienate them ...
and passionate warriors, insulting the candidates of loyal followers, beyond a focus on your legitimate disagreements on the issues, will not serve your purposes ... keep your eye on the grape ... your mission should be to win support for your issues from those in power and those who follow them ... criticism is fine; bashing is not the way ...
here's the very simple solution ... it's the piece that DU always seems to miss ... to simplify, let's just use the terms Party supporters and issue supporters ... Party supporters say "put your issue aside for now and support the Party"; issue supporters say they will not support the Party if the party won't support their issues ... the solution is simple ...
the Party needs to endorse, as an ultimate and eventual objective, the positions passionately held by its grassroots ... for example, there can be no compromise on equal rights for all ... period ... none ... where there can be compromise, and often must be compromise, is on tactics and timing ... that's where issue supporters, buoyed by an unequivocal platform plank endorsing their values, can demonstrate some flexibility ... so, for example, whether you view civil unions instead of gay marriage as "politically pragmatic", it becomes far easier for gays to see that as a "transitional approach" when the party endorses 100% equal rights for gays ... the idea here is to move both camps away from their strident extremes ... separate the party's stated values from its political tactics and timing ... that's the only path toward greater flexibility from both sides and the only path to unity ...
the second source of great conflict, and it will only get worse as we enter the next presidential primary season, is conflict between supporters of one candidate versus another ... i'm an issues person; not a candidate supporter ... take it from me, nothing has less credibility than someone supporting a candidate who NEVER disagrees with their candidate and changes their positions on issues only when their candidate does ... i would be no more influenced by a talking parrot ...
the candidate supporters i read the most and respect the most are those who sometimes say they don't like what their candidate said or how they voted on some issue ... doing that makes you, the supporter, much more credible later when you praise your candidate ...
one last group i want to address - it's the "non-forgiveness" group ... there can be no absolutes here ... if you'll just never forgive someone for what they did or how they voted, OK ... those are your values and that's the way it is ... I would only ask you to realize that, however legitimate your criticism, i still think there's room to respect that person's current actions ... it doesn't mean you have to like them or vote for them; still, if they're now fighting the good fight on some issue, it's helpful to recognize that ... frankly, we need all the support we can get even from those who have failed us in the past ... part of complimenting their current action is to help build their current position, assuming you agree with them, into a unifying consensus ... you send a very unclear signal when someone proposes a great healthcare bill and you bash them because they voted to approve a Supreme Court nominee you didn't like ... again, support them ON THIS ISSUE; it doesn't mean you'd vote for them ... this adds integrity to your posts and to you and tones down the hostilities around here at least a notch or two ...
so, that's my long-winded jabber ... 10,000 posts ... all of them probably a little too long ... thanks for reading ... keep up the great work DU; you really are making a difference!
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
<--- Me
)) 
