Lesson 1: How to communicate with an idealist Progressive

[info being]

The Democratic Party is split between what I'll call the "mainstream" Democrats (Kerry / Edwards) and the more "fringe" Progressive Democrats (Kucinich / Sharpton).

We Progressives think the main problem is fighting "establishment power". Mainstream Dems think the problem is that a bad man is in office. Progressives have a vision for a drastically different world. Mainstream Dems maybe just want prosperity like in the days of Clinton.

We have little in common except one thing: we all want Bush out and voting for Kerry in November is the only way to do that.

When I look at the postings here over the last few months, it’s clear that Mainstream Dems don't have the necessary skills to communicate effectively with the Progressives. You need us. You need our help. You need our support. And somehow you think you'll get it by using negative tactics like:

- Talking down to us
- Using sarcasm
- Reminding us how few people in this country support us
- Telling us to get over it and this is the way things have always been
- Calling us Bush Supporters (the most ridiculous of all).

If you want to win our support, you have to change your tone. Here are some general guidelines:

- Do not try to impress us or threaten us with the power behind your movement. Bush also has a lot of power behind him, but that doesn't make his movement right.

- Don't use a condescending tone.

- Don't use propagandistic phrases like the pundits use on TV. We see through them and will call you on it.

- Try to be honest with yourself and then with us to get our respect. Drop the pride a little.

- Do not remind us repeatedly how so few Americans support our candidates. We know we are few in number. We are reminded of that every day of our lives every time we watch TV or do anything.

- If you want us to join your movement, you have to treat us like we belong there.

- Don't be so concerned about whether everyone is "on the same page". We are individualistic, independent thinkers and do not necessarily wish to be lock-step with anybody. Give us room to express our individuality without you feeling so threatened by it. Don't worry, when it comes down to it we're on your side.

- Respect our idealism. Thomas Jefferson and many Americans since him were radical idealists. We are few in number, but we have some of the vision that makes this country great.

- Make use of our ideas and our messages. Notice how Kerry used some of the ideas of Dean and Kucinich quite effectively. The Democratic Party needs a big vision and a clear messages. The Democrats have not had this for some time.

- Don't get frustrated when we don't support Kerry 100%. Remember, we are against establishment power, so supporting Kerry is very painful for us. But most of us aren't blind and we know very well that Kerry is a better choice than Bush. We’ll do the right thing in November.


That's probably a good start. Maybe others can add to this. Remember that when you make these mistakes, it is in our nature to respond to you in ways that make you angry. For example, a Progressive saying "maybe I'll vote Nader" is just a way of proclaiming his/her sense of independence. Don't take it so seriously.

Focus your energies on educating the ignorant...not on herding the independent.

Note: I apologize if any other Progressives take offence to my relatively weak attempt to speak for “us”.

[goodhue]

1. Right On!

Thanks for spelling it out so plainly. I hope some will take the hint.

[gottaB]

2. please respect my idealism too

thank you

[wryter2000]

3. A mainstreamer replies

You could take some of your own advice. But personally, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop talking about our candidate as if he were the lesser of two evils. He isn't evil. Also, stop suggesting that we're selling out to the establishment.

But most of all, please don't say there's no difference between the two parties.

[info being]

5. OK, wrong answer. Here's why.

Your candidate won. If Kucinich won, I'd have to reach out to you. But since Kerry won, the burden is on you.

I don't necessarily have to change my beliefs / attitudes because you want me to. However, if you want me to support your candidate, you have to think about how to deal with me. My point isn't so much that its the right thing to do (of course, it is always right for everyone to be nice to others), my point is that you need to follow these tactics to be more effective.

If you care as much about this cause as you claim to, it might be time to swallow some pride.

[wryter2000]

16. First of all

He wasn't my candidate. Dean was. Now Kerry needs me, and I'm behind him with no reservations.

I went back and re-read your post, and you very clearly stated you saw a difference between Bush and Kerry, so I don't really have any problem with you. However, it's been my experience that some progressives go that far. When they get that holier-than-thou, they turn me seriously off, even though I agree with their positions.

[IrateCitizen]

23. So you're basically proving the point as it applies to BOTH sides

However, it's been my experience that some progressives go that far. When they get that holier-than-thou, they turn me seriously off, even though I agree with their positions.

As a progressive, I can certainly understand. There are plenty of progressives who turn ME off with their unyielding rhetoric.

Also, as a progressive, I get EXTREMELY turned off with the "unite behind the candidate and STFU" rhetoric that flows from many of the mainstream Dems. And if I have to hear one more time about how Dennis Kucinich is nothing more than a "fringe candidate", I'm going to just scream.

People on BOTH sides need to calm the fuck down, and realize that the best way to get someone on your side is to LISTEN to them. You're never going to win points by browbeating others or telling them how wrong they are -- that's the surest way to alienate them.

I agree with much in the initial post, but it has to go both ways in order to truly work. Many of us who are progressives need to stop telling the more "mainstream" folks about how much "purer" we are than they are if we want to reach THEM.

[sandnsea]

37. You wouldn't have had to reach out to me

I'd have been lined right up, no reach out necessary. Even though, all things being equal, I wouldn't think Kucinch would have a remote chance of winning the White House because most of the country disagrees with him. But still, I'd be lined right up, on my own. And that is why people like me just want to shake people like you. You just don't get it.

[youngred]

53. we get it more than you know

but do realize that for many of us, our candidate is still in the race for his own reason. Kerry may be the nominee but I want the chance to support my candidate til he's done. I will vote for/work for/donate to Kerry, but not yet.

Just because you come to a different conclusion than I do doesn't make you nor me right nor wrong, just different. Which means finding common ground, not trading rude babrs which only aide Bush

[sandnsea]

77. Support Kucinich

But you don't have to tear Kerry down to do that. You sure don't have to pretend he's like Bush when he's the furthest left in this primary you can go without getting Kucinich. And you shouldn't need Kerry to "reach out" to you when you know full well what his views on liberal issues have been for 30 years. I don't need Kerry to commit political suicide for me to know what he's going to stand for in the White House. I don't know why other people need that. 6%, that's what Nader has. Double it, for good measure, and you've got 12% liberals, at best. Not enough to win an election. That's just the way it is.

[info being]

101. Anyone has the right to say whatever they want to about any candidate

If you want to stop someone from badmouthing Kerry, the best way to do it is to try to convince them that Kerry's better...not just that they should shut up.

Bush thinks he can silence dissent through force and intimidation. How's that working?

[sangh0]

113. Get a grip

No one has done anything to keep you from posting. No force has been used and no intimidation, unless you're such a tender soul that responses are intimidating.

[sandnsea]

116. Take your own advice

"the best way to do it is to try to convince them that Kerry's better"

That's all I said, convince people Kucinich is better. Go ahead and support him. It's not necessary, or helpful overall, to tear Kerry down in the process. I've rarely heard people say anything negative about Kucinich, even though I'm telling you, we really could if that's the route we wanted to go.

[saltpoint]

46. There are no wrong answers.

It's all part of the Big Dialogue. Get used to it.

[jpgray]

4. Each side enjoys twisting a knife into what the other cares about

People are not going to be polite and civil as long as this is the case. People who bray 'ha ha, Kucinich lost!' are about as low as those who scoff 'Kerry is as bad as Bush, you guys are all idiots or not real Democrats'.

You give one side of the argument, but in reality each side should expect to be treated with some hostility if they trample someone's hopes and dreams.

[info being]

8. In general, I agree. But the responsibility of "grace" is on the winning

side.

[jpgray]

12. Yes, that is true.

Kerry folks should make an extra effort, but it would be nice if everyone made an effort. It seems very few do online.

[youngred]

55. But there it becomes a question of who gives first

One can be civil easily when one's opposites are civil. Problem is, where does the civility start? I can be perfectly civil and enjoy discussions but the second I'm referred to as a fruit loop of the looney left my civility goes out the window. Civility doesn't fly when I told I'm a traitor for defending Nader's right to run (even if I abhorr him personally and would never support him).

[Codeblue]

6. Thank you

from a fellow Progressive.

[saltpoint]

68. Also as a progressive --

-- I found the post snotty.

Many here on DU do not subscribe to such a black-and-white view, and we can definitely do without the arrogance.

[David Zephyr]

7. As The Bible Says: You Get More With Sugar Than You Do With Shit

Bully For You, Info being

I hope that your post is read by all.

Nader is now at 6% in a national poll. How much more bleeding must the Democratic Party experience of some of its finest activists before they "get it" that there is an alternative choice and that you get more with sugar than you do with shit.

[info being]

9. LOL.

[RichM]

61. Shouldn't that be more "Thou gettest more with sugar than with shit"?

I figure, if you toss in some Thou's & Thy's, people will more easily accept it as Biblical. :-)

[vi5]

10. "....just want prosperity like in the days of Clinton."

I take issue with this. I think Clinton bought a lot more to the country than just prosperity. He bought an overall tone of respect for other people to the country. He made some mistakes but I think regardless of prosperity, a lot of gays and women and minorities I know of would say that their lives were better under Clinton in more ways than just monetarily. There was someone in that office who understood the concept of empathy. And to assume that all the mainstream people want is prosperity is a bit off mark I think.

I agree with a lot of what you said and respect what you said. But I also don't think it's as black and white as you make it out to be either.

[info being]

11. Good point. There was a lot more good about Clinton...

and the remark was a little too simplistic.

[Kanary]

41. too bad about those poor folks who suffered under Clinton, eh?

It amazes, and deeply saddens me, that there is so little thought given to the "prosperity" of those on the edge, who were pushed off under Clinton.

Maybe if that was more understood, there'd be a bit less of the rancor between the two sides?

Clinton definitely had no empathy for the poor. If you can hear that, then maybe it would help to clear up why some of us have so much distrust, and are quite unhapppy at the moment.

Kanary

[blm]

13. Funny...the establishment Dems were always trying to mute Kerry. So that

makes YOU more a part of the establishment.

You do know that Kerry is to the LEFT of Kucinich on some issues, don't you?

I think you don't know Kerry or Kucinich as well as you think so you LABEL them out of a certain laziness. It beats studying their actual records of governance and their policy proposals.

Kerry sells PROGRESSIVE policies using language that APPEALS to the mainstream. That's being a SMART progressive and an effective one.

[Forkboy]

14. look! there goes the point!

oops,you missed it.

[deutsey]

21. LOL

:evilgrin:

[blm]

27. Nope. So many pretend that THEY are the ones who are

progressive and that their views are the only valid ones while speaking down to those who THEY consider are less progressive.

I will take a lecturing from those who have truly studied the candidates, their records and their policies and presents that knowledge in an honest, informed way. But, DON'T come riding in on a high horse with mere impressions that are demonstrably false.

[JohnKleeb]

36. Isnt Kerry more liberal than 97% of his senate peers according to a study

I admit his demeanor and bitterness over his war vote make us think him to be more centrist than he really was, and yes I was guilty of it.

[saltpoint]

43. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

[youngred]

58. Ahh but they're not demonstrably false

Becuase you haven't proved a thing. I have my facts...where are yours (because you made the claim that Kerry is more progressive than Kucinich).

Some people would just rather fight than beat Bush though i guess...

[saltpoint]

78. Many ARE demonstrably false --

-- and the point stands: the minority may not declare ideological purity and "instruct" the party as a whole.

Other progressives, myself included, have a broader view, one that will actually govern if we are elected.

In American political history, fringe movements of both parties either work with the majority or they get fried like bacon. All revolutions devour their own children, as they say. Bull Moose got farther than most, but did not win.

Your cartoon is awesome, but remember that its punchline/point is applicable across the Party's spectrum and not unique to the minority which the original poster trumpets.

[info being]

99. So are you suggesting that we will be fried like bacon?

What was the main point of this post? We either need to fall in line or get fried? You might want to rethink that a little.

[saltpoint]

103. Break-off movements fry like bacon across history.

You could look it up.

[no name no slogan]

134. Or they get co-opted by the mainstream

You forgot that element.

The Republicans were one of those "break-off" movements in the 1850s, and by 1860 had become the second major party in America when the Whigs imploded.

Many of the Progressive Party's ideas were co-opted by the Dems in the '30s, and became part of the New Deal.

Typically, a third party (or similar movement) crops up in America when both of the major parties move too far in one direction, or both parties ignore an important constituency. Both parties are currently quite far to the right, historically speaking. Unless the Dems want to capture more of the Green/Naderite vote, it's in their best interest to start listening to the left/liberal wing of the party.

Otherwise they risk becoming as relevant as the Whigs.

[saltpoint]

137. I didn't forget it, I just didn't think it was the --

-- point of response.

You're right on all counts.

My response to the post had a more specific intent.

[blm]

104. Look up their lifetime ADA ratings

Kerry didn't get a higher lifetime rating than DK by being a centrist.

DK has always been to the right of Kerry on the environment and first amendment issues (flag burning for one). If you can prove otherwise than I'd be interested in seeing it. I do note that DK's ratings would be on par with Kerry's however, if he hadn't had so many prolife votes on his past record.

You have me wrong if you think for a second that I am beating on DK. I am just using DK as a measure since most agree he is a progressive voice.

[info being]

15. Haha. If you can define "left" that precisely, good for you.

My main concern is decentralized power vs. centralized power. Of course I'm also for human rights. I don't know what you mean by "Left".

[saltpoint]

105. Perhaps the "haha's" --

-- could go, too, as long as 'tone' is on the table for discussion.

[gottaB]

123. You're the one who said...

"Respect our idealism. Thomas Jefferson and many Americans since him were radical idealists. We are few in number, but we have some of the vision that makes this country great."

Where does Kucinich stand on the issues of importance to Thomas Jefferson? Where does Kerry stand on those same issues? So, who represents the better standard bearer for the vision of radical idealism?

[KittyWampus]

17. Newsflash, There Are A Lot Of Ignorant Progressives

Who rely on assumptions and unthinking reactions.

As a Clark supporter who is a Progressive I know this to be true.

How many people claimed to be Progressive and yet had NO CLUE about Clark or his positions and bashed him is totally pathetic.

Furthermore, Kerry is pretty damned Progressive.

Second, as a Progressive I find your dichotomy unworkable.

[OhioStateProgressive]

19. as said many times

Kucinich is the only Progressive in the race, and therefore to be a Progressive one would need to be supporting him.

[sadiesworld]

25. So it really has nothing to do with being independent?

[IrateCitizen]

28. And you're engaging in the same kind of hyperbole...

... for which info being was castigating others.

I'm a progressive, and I have supported, donated to and voted for Dennis Kucinich. But the last damned thing I'm going to do is to go and tell someone that they're not a "true progressive" simply because they did not do the same exact thing that I did.

Instead, I'm going to LISTEN to why they did what they did, seek out areas of agreement or convergence on issues, and try to build upon those to form a coalition.

In the end, we'll probably find out that we agree on just about 80% of the overall issues. Your approach only serves to instead concentrate on that 20% upon which you DISAGREE, and further alienate you from each other rather than exploiting what should be a natural partnership.

There's plenty of time to work on that 20% after you've established a good working relationship based on your common ground.

[OhioStateProgressive]

29. well

I'm just gonna stick with the truth that Dennis is the only true Progressive choice. Since I know it to be correct, I am not going to waste my time with theories that differ.

[IrateCitizen]

31. IOW, you're going to keep your mind completely closed...

... to what others have to say, whether you agree with it or not.

For God's sakes, don't open your ears and listen to them, you just might hear them say something that makes a bit of sense while challenging YOUR point of view! It's much better to cling to your precious ideals while instinctively marginalizing anything anyone else from a different perspective might have to offer!

How "progressive" of you.... :eyes:

[OhioStateProgressive]

33. not at all

I don't believe in compromise. Of any sort. Period.

[IrateCitizen]

39. Thanks for proving my point.

I guess you stopped paying your federal income taxes then, if you opposed the invasion of Iraq -- since your taxes are going to pay for it and continuing to pay them would be compromise.

As an open-minded progressive, it greatly pains me to be lumped in consistently with the likes of rigid ideologues such as yourself.

[OhioStateProgressive]

40. As a matter of fact I don't pay taxes

I live off of grants to pay my tuition and provide me living money. Just the way America should be.

[youngred]

63. Now that sounds completely and decidedly unprogressive

actually

[OhioStateProgressive]

84. I don't believe government paid for education and living expenses

is unprogressive.

In fact it is quite Socialist, just exactly how it should be.

[mitchum]

143. You do know that you have just put the rope around your neck...

with that admission, don't you?

[youngred]

62. even some progressives dont get it

*sigh*

[info being]

22. Let's see

- Calling us ignorant

- Using language like "no clue", "bash", "pathetic"

Are you incapable or unwilling to be effective?

[sadiesworld]

18. Left a category out: realist Progressive

[belle]

121. Yeah, I put myself there. Or maybe "pragmatist progressive"

I never thought Clinton was the Second Coming: I was disappointed, too. I was registered Green for a while, though I did vote for Gore; but I have voted for Greens on the local level, and may well do so again. I like Kucinich, I agree that there are serious structural and ideological problems in the party and in the country. I just think: first things first. There *is* a bad man in the office right now, and he's leading a *very* bad administration. It's true, getting rid of him won't fix everything, not by a long shot. Necessary but not sufficient...but it *is* necessary. I was behind Dean; but now Kerry's the best chance we have of dumping Bush? I'm 200% behind Kerry. After that, I'm willing to talk long-term. Or during, if it's about anything besides who's running for the WH. But first and foremost, Bush *must go.* I just don't have the patience to talk to anyone who doesn't see that this is the #1 priority, not now.

[DinahMoeHum]

20. IB, I think this advice from one of your own says it best. . .

I give you Doris "Granny D" Haddock, from her speech last year: "Don't Stand In The Way Of Our Joy":

Link:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15789

"...There are many among us on the peace trail who will not support a candidate unless that candidate is perfect on every issue. Politics is about winning. For us, it is about winning to save lives and raise people up from poverty and illness and loneliness and injustice. Those posturing on the left sometimes forget that. Don't tell me that you can't support a particular candidate because of this or that. This isn't about you and your precious political standards. It is about saving nature and our people. We are coming out to win, so please don't stand in our way. When we have reasonable people in power, let us start our arguments again, for we can not move forward unless we have a decent government underneath us and a Bill of Rights to let us speak freely..."


BTW, I wasn't too keen on Kerry myself (being a Howard Dean supporter)
But I have also said time and again that no matter who gets the Dem nomination, I'm voting for the Dem come November. Some of us will have to "pocket our pride" or put a clothespin on the nose to do it. But we will do it.


:kick::kick::kick:

[saltpoint]

42. Bravo for you frankzappa & for Granny, too.

It's time some of us decided to be big boys and girls.

[Nazgul35]

24. Personally I believe that Progressive values

are shared by the majority of Americans....

The reason why our Party's candidates are forced to run to the center is because:

1) Our electoral law dictates it...

2) The repugs outspend us 10-1....we can't respond, so we move to the center (as defined by the repugs) to avoid getting slammed any harder than necessary...

If we can give our candidates equal footing to compete with the repugs...this desires concessions from both sides:

From the progressive grass roots, small donors crowd:

----> Realize that not all districts look alike, some require candidates to take a more conservative stance than we would like...in order for a party to achieve majority status...it has to include more members that are towards the center to hold that majority!

From the candidates running for office:

----> If we give you time (canvassing, GOTV, phone banking) and treasure ($$$$$....$$$$$)....you will no longer need to hide your liberal-progressive stances from the electorate...so stand the hell up and fight for them! We got your back!!!! This requires respect for our efforts....we are an interest group that requires that the issues and policies we care about be given serious consideration....we are not ATMs for the Washington elite....

We have a right to withhold funding from Dems who are not in the situation mentioned above because:

1) we have a right to expect the same level of respect that other donors to politicians receive..
2) we have a right to voice our concerns to said politician....
3) should said politician fail to respond to our concerns, we will try and replace them....

The Party has a right to run candidates in conservative districts without getting crap from the far left....as long as the candidate votes for Pelosi and Senator to be named later for Speaker and Majority leader....what does it matter...

We also have a responsibility to actually learn how Congress works, before we run off and make wild claims that the Washington establishment is screwing us over because we didn't get the exact language we wanted on a particular law...

enough said....

[HERVEPA]

26. I'm Curious

Have you anti-Kerry folks actually looked at Kerry's voting ratings by liberal organizations. This is a reasonable indication of what type of president he might be.

ADA Kerry 85%
Council for a livable world 92%
American Conservative Union 4%
NARAL 100%

[IrateCitizen]

30. I'm curious how you could stretch "anti-Kerry" to describe...

... a group of people who will be voting for Kerry?

You couldn't be engaging in hyperbole, could you? Nah! :grr:

[saltpoint]

57. It is ODD that we would reach that conclusion --

-- based on the avalanche of disrespectful remarks about the presumptive nominee.

Yes. The attacks on Senator Kerry constitute an anti-Kerry group. Vote for whomever you wish. But the attacks are untoward.

[youngred]

64. Anti-Kerryism

is a rather silly idea.

[saltpoint]

66. Yeah it kind of is.

And yet several posts by the original poster to this thread seem to, well... I guess I would say.... SUGGEST a trend in that direction.

Thus the conclusions.

[info being]

69. Kind of like being unAmerican if you don't fully support Bush

Questioning = bad.

[saltpoint]

111. Nope.

Arrogance = off-putting

[sangh0]

133. Ironic, considering you call other DUers "Bush* supporters"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x434126

[curse10]

32. Well you don't speak for this Progressive

that's for damn sure.

[JohnKleeb]

34. I can do that then again I am still a Kucinich supporter in a way

because to be honest I am a far leftist. I really think its a shame how some people are treating Kucinich and Sharpton because they are staying in. Personally while I would prefer people vote for the nominee, I wont raise hell if they support an indepedent, and personally I would prefer Walt Brown over Nader. Socialist :D. I trust that you guys will do the right thing, you're behind the best candiate in the race. Really sucks that people are being assholes honest.

[saltpoint]

35. The gleaming purity is --

-- spellbinding.

O if only we could be as brilliant and pure.

Please forgive us.

[info being]

71. If only your pride would allow it.

[saltpoint]

109. My pride allows for everyone's participation without --

-- the limiting and labelling you insist on.

Your posts would seem to insist on that polarity.

Not such a good proglem-solving strategy.

[saltpoint]

38. You don't speak for this progressive at all.

Your argument is polarizing and limiting.

And deliberately so.

Vacuous.

[Kanary]

44. Basic communication skillls... how progressive, eh? ^_^

Good job, info being.... not "weak attempt" at all.

I've said all along, that if people in a family talk to each other in the ways demonstrated all too often here, the family wouldn't hold together long, and certainly wouldn't weather the tragedies that can happen in life.

Basic respect goes a long way.

Unfortunately, what we often see here is much like what we as Dems have experienced at the hands of the reich wing for so many years: utter contempt for our very ideas and beliefs. That just doesn't do much for creating a strong party.

When centrists treat me in the same way that I've been treated by the rightwingers, I have the same reaction... anger and dismissal.
Many of us have come to the "Mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" position after years of being demonized by the righ, and when we experience it from those who we are supposedly on the same side as, our anger is already there.

If we want to create something different, we're going to have to start by being different with each other.

Good communication really isn't that tough to learn.

Kanary

[info being]

74. You're right. Unfortunately it has to come from the heart.

And all that comes from the heart of many Kerry supporters on this board is hatred and cruelty.

[saltpoint]

45. Well hell, Info Being.

You may very well have to start your own political party.

In lieu of obvious dedication to higher standards than almost anyone else around, I think that's probably the best deal out there for you.

The Democratic Party, unfortunately, is just full of people with different viewpoints and ideas.

[Kanary]

47. Well, hell, geez

"The Democratic Party, unfortunately, is just full of people with different viewpoints and ideas."

This is so constantly the reason given for verbal abuse, and it's time it gets countered.

Mature people can have different ideas and even values, and still treat others with consideration.

It is NOT necessary to cut off someone at the knees who has a different viewpoint.

It certainly does NOT lead to many people working their butts off when they have been attacked by their own.

A different viewpoint is NOT an invitation for attack.

Kanary

[saltpoint]

49. Yup. That's what I posted. The Party has people --

-- with different views. If you read what I said carefully, you'll see that the point I'm making is that Info Being's original posts of the last couple days are deliberately divisive.

They intend, expressly, to polarize and belittle what he wrongly calls "mainstream" Democrats.

The place for people who don't like the Party is inevitably to begin their own party.

That's what I said, Well. Hell. Geez.

===
edit: typo

[Kanary]

70. Blame the other

instead of looking for ways to bring peace.

That way we'll be sure to stay fractured during the election and beyond.

What I said stands. Mature people can have difference of opinion and not chop each other to ribbons.

Kanary

[saltpoint]

80. Your loyalty to the original poster notwithstanding --

-- the post was intentionally divisive.

I'm afraid what I say stands as well.

[Kanary]

129. Fer crying in a bucket!

I don't know "info being", and as far as I know, have not read any of his previous posts. What you just said is soooo reminesicent of the tactics on the other side that I really don't want to play anymore. You DON'T KNOW ME, EITHER, and have no business ascribing motives to my words! Geeeez, fella, that's exactly what we're saying about communication!! LISTEN up!

His words spoke for me, and verbalize my own thoughts. Since that is not OK with you, then there's no point in contuinuuing any further. I don't care to be bashed anymore that I already have been, and I don't need the anger of having someone pretend to read my mind.

As I said before, one thing his post did for me is to confirm that I get nothing out of these kinds of silly exchanges. I rather spend my energy with people who are willing to listen, and have some good will to impart.

Adios...

Kanary

[saltpoint]

131. I didn't say you "knew" the poster at any time.

I'm sorry you have been disagreed with on this forum, but after all, it is a FORUM and that's how the game is played.

At no time, and I say this respectfully to you, did you engage me in a discussion of the ideas I contributed. You either defended the original poster or ignored what I said.

No attempt was made to "read your mind."

I offered what I thought were clear objections and you apparently rejected them without comment.

If at some point down the road you want to discuss Dennis Kucinich, I could tell you some very positive things about him that I bet you do not know.

[info being]

75. Does my attempt at higher standards bother you?

Why?

[saltpoint]

110. It's the arrogance in assuming your standards are --

-- higher that makes us wonder.

Your arguments wobble and they assault not only the party's nominee, but anyone who supports "the mainstream" -- labelling, limiting, dividing, intemperate, untoward.

If you're curious about standards, you might look into that demonstrable vein in your posts and start there.

[youngred]

48. This is one of the most powerful messages for "us"

Thank You. I was thinking of writing something similar this evening, but you said it better and more neutrally than I could have.

[earthsea wizard]

51. Youngred, your cartoon is dead on!

especially the little dudes in the bottom.

Sometimes truth hurts. Sometimes it heals, and sometimes its just too damn funny :)

[earthsea wizard]

50. Thanks InfoBeing!

no apology needed! Thanks for the post, very well said, and forgive me for saying--very moderate in tone!

:0 Moderate? Argh!

[Sushi-Lover]

52. There are more then two sides to this coin ..

which I guess makes it more of a multi-sided die instead of progressive vs not-progressive. Gamer analogies aside, I think the basics of your post are correct. I would add that, while constructive criticism is always fine, the time for snarky commentary on any candidate is over. Supporters of recently defeated candidates might have sour grapes, but it seems to me that some (a very few probably) supporters of the winner have saved up their sour grapes from the far past of this primaries history and seem to be engaging in some retaliatory pelting of others with rotten sour grapes.

The way to attract consolidation behind Kerry is not "I told you so", "loser loser loser", "get the hell in line or your a Bush enabler" or "we don't need you 1%er". Give people time, make them feel welcome, by all means remind them how much they hate and despise Bush or educate them about things you think they will like about Kerry's record. Nobody has to love Kerry, being anti-Bush is good enough. In fact, just the process of the election will probably serve to polarize people behind Kerry. I, for one, become fonder of him the more I happen to stumble upon footage of Bush opening his stupid mouth to make language like noises.

To be fair, I have to note that "maybe I'll vote Nader", "here is my list of demands", "we are going to lose because Kerry is X Y Z" or "establishment enabler" is probably not going to lead to a productive conversation with someone who loves Kerry or is vehemently ABB and emotional about it. Getting rid of Bush and working to make changes in our country are complimentary, but not completely equivalent goals. There is plenty of room to work on both.

Finally, if people would stop being so predictably human in their behavior it would probably be a lot easier to achieve unity.

[chiburb]

54. Well ! Look who's calling for intelligent discourse!

Like these examples in an otherwise civil, thoughtful thread...

info being (750 posts) Thu Mar-04-04 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #36

42. Great post. Another, simple way to say it is....


Keep fighting the good fit. But plug your nose and vote for Kerry on election day. That's what I'll do.


or this:

info being (750 posts) Thu Mar-04-04 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #29

33. Thanks for the honest answer.


So the pro-Kerry platform is: vote for me and there may not be any more illegal wars at least while I'm in office but there may be we'll just have to see because my record shows that I really can't be trusted either way.

Yup. I'm on board.


Or this:

info being (750 posts) Thu Mar-04-04 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #30

32. Exactly. You don't open a negotiation by caving.


You hold ground and expect the other party to meet you half-way. That hasn't happened. Kerry is not bending to ANY of the issues we feel strongly about.


There was an even better example, but I see that you edited it...

(All from this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=432864

[info being]

79. I was wrong to use that tone. I caught myself doing it and wanted to stop

But like I've said in other posts...I'm not the one who needs to work on this. My candidate didn't win and I don't have to reach out to you.

[saltpoint]

90. Info Being, we wish to take you at your word, but --

-- your posts exhibit the same tone on a consistent basis.

Why would you seek to divide DUers, or Party members, by ideology? You speak for no one but yourself.

Your definition of a "progressive" is not superior to anyone else's of our 40,000+ members.

No one, full sectors or anyone else, needs instruction from you on how to communicate with you. If you want to vote for Kerry, do it. If you don't, don't do it.

But we are frankly not in the goddam mood for a lecture from you on how to participate in our own party.

[rucky]

56. We need each other

We need you to win (provide the means). You need us to remind you what we're winning (provide the ends).

Let's respect those aspects of each other and work together.

Oversimplification & not a perfect analogy, but you get the picture.

[MurikanDemocrat]

59. I see a one-sided offer on your part, where the mainstream is supposed

to make all the compromises to cater to a small fringe minority that expects to dictate to a majority who do not agree with their vision of a "drastically different world" in your words. Because in adopting this "drastically different world" agenda, for which the fringe minority does NOT have the leverage in numbers to dictate, the Democratic Party would LOSE far more centrist and moderate voters than the fringe left could possibly replace with their votes.

And we are supposed to DO this, ALL on a one-sided basis as well? While you do nothing but agree to bring nothing to the table but your attitude and votes while we agree to commit political and Party suicide? ROTFL! This problem is bigger that you think!

No, we don't need deals like this. You need us to get anything accomplished, not the other way around. You can't accomplish anything in small numbers - by going 3rd Party. You have this backwards.

Emotional extortion and blackmail doesn't work with the mainstream or the Democratic Party. I'm not asking for your vote either. Do what you gotta do. The rest of us will take care of the heavy lifting without you.

[rucky]

60. Do you treat the swing voters the same way?

and what do you get in return?

[MurikanDemocrat]

85. Swing voters do not make ridiculous and unrealistic demands

Threaten emotional extortion and blackmail, or otherwise throw tantrums and make condescending demands that they be allowed to shove a one-sided agenda up my ass for which they do not have the leverage in numbers to demand.

In addition, swing voters range around 10% of the voters - the fringe left range around 1-2%. Swing voters along with the mainstream moderates and centrists of the Democratic Party have more leverage and thus have more say in the Party Platform and agenda.

And yes, the one-sided, condescending "offer" that began this thread rubs me the wrong way, for sure. It is basically a laundry list of all the things YOU will do for ME, and I will do nothing in return. It is also based on the MISTAKEN presumption that the mainstream NEEDS the radical left MORE than it needs the GREATER numbers of votes and approval of the rank and file of the majority of the Democratic voters. Indeed.

That is not a deal at all. That is political and Party suicide. A CERTAIN way to LOSE this election. The left fringe overestimate their value. It is not that they are not welcome in the Democratic Party. No. It is that they make impossible and unrealistic demands and are impossible to please. They need us, not the other way around, because the truth is they will get "some" of what they want if they go with the Democratic Party, but NOTHING if they go 3rd Party, and they do know this.

Just look at how this poster described the progressive vision - as a "drastically different world"? Now just how in God's name is an agenda like that going to sell to a majority of the Democratic Party? People are just not going to buy DRASTIC changes over night! Any change has to take place slowly, and making this or any election about drastically restructuring the Party or the World is going to fail, and for the life of me I just don't understand why progressives don't see that and insist on making that a litmus test.

So, yes, I think trying to work with that kind of a purist and altruistic attitude is a losing proposition and a complete waste of time. I do think a lot can be accomplished with a Democratic Presidency, and would rather concentrate my efforts where they can actually make a difference. Discussing absurd and suicidal propositions with someone who has no intention of coming to a reasonable agreement is not one of them.

[info being]

87. Look. Maybe you don't need us. Take your chances.

But if I'm gonna be part of this party, than the ideas of Kucinich, Braun, and Sharpton must be taken seriously by this party. They don't get to bait-and-switch me...which of course was the plan when they let these people into the debates.

[maxanne]

94. if they really wanted

to take their chances, they wouldn't be browbeating us 24/7. If they want the party to be visibly different from the Republican party, they do need us. Otherwise, there isn't a hell of a lot of difference.

[saltpoint]

98. The position of peddling your votes as a distinct --

-- wing of the party assumes that you know who's in that wing and who isn't.

You know no such thing.

The party nominees are not beholden to your ideology. Withdraw or give your vote, as you choose.

It's the tone, IB. It is really off-putting.

[MurikanDemocrat]

112. There is no choice but to proceed without you, because you offer

no reasonable alternative. Your "offer" is absurd. The cost is FAR, FAR, FAR higher than what you could replace in votes.

And for the record this is NOT about dismissing the ideas of Kucinich, Braun, and Sharpton. If you will check my prior posts on the matter I have ALWAYS supported their candidacies, and have indeed encouraged others to vote for Kucinich. Their agendas are important to the Party, and have a place in the effort to SLOWLY shift the Party leftward.

These candidates knew they would not be the nominees - they sought to add to the dialog, and have had some degrees of success in doing so. That's how it starts - a little at a time. And the message has to continue to be plugged away at, a little at a time, so it's not such a radical idea anymore to the mainstream. It's not going to happen overnight.

Believe it or not I DO want a much further left agenda on the table than what we have now, but I realize that if we demand it all at once we are going to LOSE this election and there is not even going to BE a Democratic Party for the next few generations. There will be nothing but neocons and a fascist agenda for as far as the eye can see. There is not even going to BE a Democratic Judge on the USSC on the bench for the next few generations.

I'll take some now, and work on the rest later. Just PREVENTING another 4 years of this shit will be a MAJOR improvement.

[rucky]

141. Swing voters are spooks

they don't make any demands. all we do is fall all over ourselves trying to anticipate their desires.

this is a strategic decision: make a few concessions for some guaranteed votes, or stand your ground out of fear of losing votes you're not really sure you have in the first place.

[saltpoint]

73. Hey Murikan Democrat -- I want to buy you --

-- the coldest damned beer on earth.

Terrific post. I'm right with you.

[maxanne]

88. yep

intolerance and judgemental condemnation are surely traits to be proud of.

The real heavy lifting in this world is done by people who forge alliances with unlikely partners to get the work done. The kind where BOTH sides have to suck it up and treat each other with respect.

[saltpoint]

100. Gosh, Maxanne. I wouldn't characterize blm's post --

-- as "intolerant and judgmental" at all. I liked it a lot, in fact.

I'm really surprised you reached that conclusion.

[MurikanDemocrat]

117. I don't thiink there was anything about that original post that was

"respectful" or suggesting an "alliance" or a "partnership". It was a one-sided condescending "offer" for the majority to meet a laundry list of DEMANDS of a small minority in return for nothing but a suicide pact.

[MurikanDemocrat]

119. LOL Thanks

Now there's a reasonable offer I can accept. ;)

[saltpoint]

125. :)

It's a deal, then.

[info being]

83. Finally your seeing the situation for what it is.

It's your decision. But if you decide you don't need us, don't be surprised if we take our vote elsewhere. This is your decision.

No more "Bush-enabler" crap directed in my direction. If you shut out the Progressive vote then you are the Bush-enabler.

Where would the Republicans be without the luny Christian Right. But do they call them "fringe?" No, the reach out and call them "base".

[Sushi-Lover]

106. What post did you read?

Seriously, did I miss the part where demands that the Democratic party and its nominee warp into "all the world is Berkeley CA" mode were made? Your arguing against a viewpoint that exists, but not in this post. The basic point was to advise that people not act to polarize those not yet on board into moving away from the Democrats.

Further, the problem with the view that 1%ers should be ignored is that guess what .. we are all 1%ers. You are not part of a 51% group of Dems you are part of 51 1% groups that are currently working together. It seems to me that the "heavy lifting" probably should include reaching out for more votes, $, and volunteer work from people who you have a reasonable chance of convincing. We need all the 1%ers .. the 1% "fringe leftists", the 1% "closer to the fringe than the middle leftists", the 1% "Republican but hate Bush", the 1% "Libertarian realists", the 1% "slightly left of center, with a few right issues", the 1% "please wake me when people stop working against their own best interests" etc.

[RichM]

65. Excellent post. I'm stunned to see so many snarky responses.

Perhaps Mainstream Dems are even more hopeless than I'd thought.

You offered up a great deal of substance & insight, here. You expressed it in a way that shows an earnest interest in beginning to bridge the divide.

And yet... very few takers, at least so far. This seems indicative of a "my way or the highway" mentality on the other side. Pity...

[saltpoint]

67. The original post was deliberately --

-- divisive. If the original poster wanted to help the party, he could make an attempt to do it. Instead, he posts a series of intemperate and arrogant assaults on "mainstream" DUers.

In a college linguistics class, his assertion would earn him low marks.

[Kanary]

72. His post is talking about good communication skills.

Only in a very strange world is that "divisive"

Kanary

[saltpoint]

86. Kanary, the post is about labeling by division.

Its premise is that "two" sectors of the party war against each other.

Its other premise is that its "progressive" sector is vital and therefore must instruct the majority on how to win its votes.

The premise is false. The tone is arrogant.

[info being]

92. Well, if we aren't vital then I don't know why you're all so paranoid

how we vote. If we are vital, then treat us that way. You don't get to look down your noses at us and call us pathetic and then ask for our support.

[saltpoint]

102. I have a short nose anyway, IB.

You ain't special. That was the point.

[Kanary]

108. His post is about LISTENING

LISTENING is NOT arrogant.

Of COURSE there are "two sectors at war"....... those of us on the receiving end see that clearly.

What we're asking for is to be heard, to be respected, and to be treated with the same consideration you would give to a neighbor, friend or coworker.

Quite simple, actually.

Kanary

[saltpoint]

115. Kanary, I was a Kucinich voter in Cleveland, probably --

-- before you were.

The original post is NOT about listening. It's about division.

And its tone is arrogant.

If DU Kucinich voters want praise and recognition, they can look up every thread I've mentioned him in if they want.

That point aside, the original post is arrogant and divisive.

[Kanary]

126. I'm not into arguing anymore

I agree with his post, so you can dismiss me, also.

One thing he confirmed for me.... I really am not getting anything out of the wrangling, so... have at it, and I'll go my own way.

Just remember that when you want us to fall in line.

Kanary

[saltpoint]

130. If someone on DU asks you to fall in line, I think --

-- you should call the cops. We all get to vote as we choose. That's never been an issue, Kanary.

Do you really imagine that the original post is a fair and informed view of the history of -- and current history of -- the Democratic Party? Your school teachers long ago must have told you better. Mine did, and I went to Ohio schools not noted for their textbooks.

At least consider it from other positions. No argument is needed. It could be a discussion.

[maxanne]

89. and your approach

is about fostering unity? BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[sangh0]

91. Fostering unity is not what this poster is about

Go see his thread titled "Get used to it"

You'll learn a lot about how to talk to the other side

[maxanne]

97. don't you think

it's a bit presumptous of you to speak for another poster? I'm not interested in from an interpreter.

[sangh0]

114. No I don't

and I have no interest in hearing what you are interested in

[info being]

93. "Unity" = "Agree with me"

That's how these people think.

[saltpoint]

118. Very sorry, maxanne. I had the wrong-headed notion --

-- that the party's presumptive nominee, selected by hundreds of thousands of Democratic voters in many states, was owed a residual respect.

Further, I am wrong-headed to defend that nominee when he is besmirched.

How I fell into the path of darkness, I just don't know.

[saltpoint]

138. Whoops. You forgot the point of objection.

The post was divisive. Declaratively so.

This is a FORUM. Ideas are exchanged.

I resent the labels and limits of the original poster's message.

If "unity" is your concern, address your objections to the original poster whose post is divisive.

[sangh0]

76. I'd believe you more if you practiced what you preached

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x434126

And I don't buy the "the burden is on the winners" rant. It's *everybody's* burden to be nice. Some of us just wear the burder better than others

[Bread and Circus]

81. Guess what, the idealists also need the mainstream dems....

Probably more than the mainstream dems need them.

Imagine that.

It goes both ways.

[info being]

95. Great. Maybe you want to do a post on how we can get you...

to listen to us.

[saltpoint]

122. familydoctor's message was a suggestion that --

-- the party might be stronger to acknowledge that we need everybody, etc.

Sounds good to me.

Your response was petulant.

There's that 'tone' problem again.

[Bread and Circus]

142. Basically, the original post sounds pious...

And frankly, I am a progressive -- though I consider
myself more realistic than idealistic.

Idealistic is wearing toga sheets and eating
grapes fed to me by beautiful women.

Realistic is putting Americans back to work
by putting money into restructuring our energy
system.

[OhioStateProgressive]

96. well, I guess we can all just vote Nader

I guess since you don't need us. It worked real well in 2000.

[jonnyblitz]

82. EXCELLENT post !!

:thumbsup: :hi: I have decided to support Kerry but I agree with you 100 %

[libragirl73]

107. Well Said.

I couldn't agree more.

But watch out, Info.
It doesn't matter how relevant your point
is if you happen to be typing fast and you either
misspell or misuse a word.
It's much easier for some to ignore valid points
rather than face them...at least from my experience.

[WilliamPitt]

120. An answer

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x438399

[sangh0]

124. This is how info being sets an example

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x434126

"I have a very simple message for all Kerry supporters.

You don't like our criticism of things? Get used to it...."

[WilliamPitt]

127. "It just makes you look like a lot like Bush supporters"

Hmmm...wasn't that...in the original post...didn't he say...

Oh never mind. :grr:

[salin]

128. As a progressive let me state on the record the lack of respect

shown in tone, which sort of runs underneath this post, makes it hard to be heard or to be treated with respect.

This back and forth, tit for tat, self-righteous tone from both sides is about as counterproductive as the poisonous candidate war-threads.

If folks would check themselves first, find a way to express themselves with the level of discourse and respect that they themselves would respond to positively, the discourse would improve. Including the allowance of those who support Kerry - to make room for those who are reluctant but stil on board.

heck there have been several recent discussions about ways folks can be involved in pursuing progressive ends - even if they did not have the energy or enthusiasm to work directly for Kerry.

You want respect, then treat others with respect. Get off the demanding while talking down to _ and I say this to BOTH sides. Ignore these types of threads for a little while so that you aren't tempted to start a new one - because each one - results in at least one if not two or more just as holier than thou threads coming from the other direction. Stop the perpetual motion machine.

Unless of course one really doesn't want respect but wants continued derision. In that case... carry on.

[MurikanDemocrat]

132. Thank you.

And while I admittedly saw red with the original post in this thread, I will say that I still believe that there are far more reasonable voices like yours amoung the progressives than there are the more vocal ones with the demanding purist condescending tones that started this thread.

:toast:

[snoochie]

135. Great post.

Thanks. :)

[Iverson]

136. regretting that you tried, info being?

Personally, I'm kind of glad that you made the effort.
However, since your effort may not have been perfect, a whole lot of folks will use - are using - that as an excuse to further entrench themselves in wilful deafness.

Being gracious or considerate or polite toward the left is seen, wrongly, as imperiling the religion of triangulation. People don't like having their religion messed with. An article of faith is not a construction achieved through reason, and therefore a construction based upon reason will not alter it.

[sangh0]

139. regretting that he tried to fool people

From the original post in this thread:

"And somehow you think you'll get it by using negative tactics like:

- Talking down to us
- Using sarcasm
- Reminding us how few people in this country support us
- Telling us to get over it and this is the way things have always been
- Calling us Bush Supporters (the most ridiculous of all)."

From http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x434126

"Taunting us with the power of your candidate and laughing at ours doesn't impress us. It just makes you look like a lot like Bush supporters..."

[Iverson]

140. info being, have you changed your name to sangh0?

And your style ... so much more pointlessly pugnacious than before. Please confirm.