It's easy to blame and hate, it's a whole lot harder to support and be constructive

[NJmaverick]

One thing I have observed in life is that it's not all that hard to manipulate people's general sense of dissatisfaction. What I mean by that is that the majority of people either are dissatisfied or unhappy. One of the easiest things to do is focus those feelings by targeting a person or group as the reason for their lack of satisfaction. The right wingers demonstrated that with their cultural wedge issues. They were able to blame liberals, gays and immigrants for the root of all of America's perceived problems and short comings.

Now by the same token we are seeing these same conditions creating problems on DU. It was easy for DUers to be united in their unhappiness and disapproval of Bush, the GOP and the right wingers. The common enemy concept united a vast group of people. The anarchists, the greens, the Naderites, the Dems, the Moderates, the DLC, the far left, the progressives, the anti-war movement could all get behind being against the right and everything it stood for. Not being in a position of power we could all enjoy the emotional luxury of never having to bend or give or even be reasonable. We could knock the other side for everything and anything no matter how trivial or fair. I really didn't have a problem with this as we were dealing with a group of people that had no problem lying or smearing or tricky people to maintain their power base. So not cutting them any sort of break or trying to see things from their perspective made a lot of sense.

The tables have turned though. Now "we" (the Dems) are in power and the people that nearly ruined our nation are on the outside looking in. The Dems are but one member of the anti right coalition. However it's important to note that it was the only member capable of seizing the reigns of power from the GOP. On top of that power in a Democracy is much more difficult and more complex to wield than most people realize. Look at when the right was in charge. They were never able to outlaw abortion, drill in the Alaska wilderness or privatize Social Security. The Founding Fathers built a certain amount of inertia into our political system to prevent it from changing so much that it become unstable and lacking in legitimacy. After all what sort of moral force would rules or laws that changed every year or so really have? It's also difficult to wrap one's head around the idea of compromise. I think most people who post on internet message boards do so because they have strong convictions. They post not to listen, but rather to sell those convictions to others. That being the case, their is a tendency to feel that your own position, being the correct one, should never be altered bent or compromised. After all what can be served by altering perfection?

However no one side or ideology or political party has the monopoly on these feelings. In fact they all have people that feel this way. Still this is a democracy and that means that no one group or view should have the monopoly on policy and power. When we were out of power one of our justified complaints was that Bush made no effort to listen to all of America. He listened exclusively to his base and alienated the rest of the nation. When you consider these factors I can't help but draw the conclusion that we should be tolerant of divergent views and opinions and being willing to compromise and be accommodating. As no two people are going to have the same point of view, it stands to reason no one will ever be fully satisfied with what a leader is trying to do. However one needs to look at the whole package when passing judgment. One needs to look at what is possible or practical. One needs to consider the political realities of elections and the views of all Americans. One needs to consider what the over arching goals are (rather than just focusing on the narrow details). In addition to be supportive one has to exercise many positive virtues such as patience, tolerance and understanding. One needs to be able to put things in perspective.
So in short it’s easy to destroy, it’s much harder to build.

[DevonRex]

1. Wonderful, esp the part about the Dem Party being the only one capable

of seizing the reins from the GOP. That's reality and some folks simply choose not to live in it.

[madokie]

2. The republicon way is to tear down their opponent, thats all they have

If you have to tear someone else down to make yourself look good you ain't much yourself is what my dad would say. That from me for the most part is speaking directly to the pukies.

I had to give this a rec for several reasons but the important one is this is what I like to read. good sound individual analyst of the situation

have a great year :hi:

[treestar]

3. Good and the much needed reminder that the GOP did not in fact

get everything they want either is made.

[madamesilverspurs]

4. Right on! Er, Left on!

"In addition to be supportive one has to exercise many positive virtues such as patience, tolerance and understanding. One needs to be able to put things in perspective.
So in short it’s easy to destroy, it’s much harder to build."

And with regard to 'perspective' we need to keep in mind that we are still suffering the effects of the poison that was the Bush administration; recovery from all that is going to be a process, not an event.

[billh58]

5. I could not have said

it any better, nor nearly as well. I remember a time when being a Liberal Democrat was synonymous with being a "moderate." At times, that approach worked to our disadvantage, but in the long run we were more respected by our adversaries -- even the most vicious of them.

By its very nature, politics will never be completely clean and above board, because a job that costs more to obtain than it pays, and which leads to being responsible for collecting and spending the People's money, also lends itself to smoky backrooms and deal-making among special interest groups. There, I said it.

I believe that where most average voters go wrong, however, is in placing too many unrealistic expectations on a single individual (a president, a governor, a mayor, etc.). Specifically, expectations which he or she has absolutely no power to fulfill single-handedly, without the help and support of a legislative body -- regardless of what they may imply during the run for office.

[Fire1]

6. I've come to the conclusion that the people playing the blame

game and spewing hatred must lead very tragic lives. What else would drive someone to perpetuate hatred and disdain? To what possible end? Truly sad and they deserve our sympathy.

[Cha]

7. Yes, it's a whole

lot harder to be construtive+(which btw is advocated in The DU Rules).

Thanks for trying so hard.