I don't have much use for ideologues

[cali]

it's not a frame of mind that's conducive to reflective thought. It leads to "cuuby hole thinking". It leads to reactionary "thinking. And that's not thinking at all.

People and issues are more complex than ideologues recognize. And being glued to ideology too often leads to hyperbole and hysteria, not to mention a purity litmus test.

So in the eyes of some of the ideological purists around here, Obama's cabinet is just as bad as bushco's. Hillary Clinton is simply a blood thirsty neocon out to nuke Iran. Tom Daschle is nothing but a DLC stooge. Tim Geithner is simply a corporate whore. If Obama doesn't slash the military budget by X, he's an unrepentant hawk.

And the ideologues will either ignore or complain about the appointment of progressives like Melody Barnes or Xavier Beccera. In fact, virtually nothing will satisfy the ideologues of the Counterpunch flavor.

And let's be clear: I'm not telling anyone to shutup. I'm expressing what I believe.

[skooooo]

1. Agree with you on that.

Now that Obama's elected, it's difficult to talk about much around here. :shrug:

[hobbit709]

2. I never could stand fanatics of any stripe.

[WilliamPitt]

3. Cheers

K&R

[Fumesucker]

4. Anyone who voices any complaints/criticisms or concerns of course..

Being an "ideologue".

Whereas blind worshippers are totally non ideological.

Haven't we had enough of the Republicans playing that game against everyone else, we could see it was idiotic then, do Dems have to play it against each other?

Everyone has an ideology unless they are total pragmatists and total pragmatists will do *anything* to accomplish their goals. I don't believe that the end justifies the means and the way I decide what means are unacceptable to me is via my ideology.

[cali]

6. That's so not true.

I am opposed to Obama's plans for Afghanistan. I find some of his appointments disappointing.

And having an ideology is different from being an ideologue.

[Fumesucker]

16. Ideologue is not a binary condition, it's shades of gray..

I'm not sure that anyone is either a total ideologue or a total non ideologue, everyone has a trace of humanity and no one has completely freed themselves from preconceptions.

A sliding scale if you will, you don't dislike ideologues, you dislike ideologues who are more extreme than you.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. I don't have much use for the ideologically ignorant

who don't understand that there are real substantial and important ideological differences between left and right. The progressive democratic left faction of the Democratic Party, voters who constitute at least a third of the Democratic base, have no representation in Obama's cabinet. This is not the end of the world, it is just disappointing and a clear signal that the Obama administration is charting a center-right course. Events may propel it in a different direction, but that it is where it is heading out.

[sendero]

8. Obama..

... ran a centrist campaign and will lead as a centrist.

If you think we could have elected a leftist, well I just disagree with you.

Perhaps in 8 years.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. And again - his 'centrist' cabinet

includes not one progressive left member. It does of course include several rightists. That makes it a center right cabinet. While Obama may in fact take the administration in some other direction, the actual evidence we have right now is that this will be yet another center-right administration.

[cali]

9. you're confused.

I certainly never said there aren't ideological differences between right and left. Hell, there are ideological differences within the left.

And the cabinet is neither complete nor the only place where appointments are meaningful.

And no, it's not a sign of very much at this point. Read the Art of War. Read The Prince.

And pay closer attention to what Obama said in the course of the campaign. He made it clear that he wants to move the center away from the right, in the same manner that Reagan moved it away from the left.

Can he do it? I don't know. That remains to be seen.

Oh, and one can have an ideology without being an ideologue.

[Fumesucker]

19. Reagan didn't gently nudge the country to the center

He yanked it hard to the right.

Anyone who was an adult at the time knows that.

Defecits, drug war, beirut/grenada, contras, evil empire, union busting..

Reagan was as big a disaster as bushie in some ways.

[cali]

21. Reagan did so by getting a substantial majority of Americans

behind him. That's what enabled him to yank the country to the right. I was an adult then. And I remember being amazed that so many fell in behind him.

[slackmaster]

12. Obama did not win by pandering to the left, and he owes the left no more than he owes anyone else

He has to govern for everyone, doing what is right for the whole country as he sees it. He did not get elected just because the left (big surprise here) voted for the Democratic ticket, and could not have won had he been perceived as a left idealogue (other than by the far right who thinks anyone with a D after their name is a leftist).

voters who constitute at least a third of the Democratic base, have no representation in Obama's cabinet....

Congress is the only proper place for factions to have representation in the federal government. The function of the Cabinet is supporting the agenda of the President and getting the work done.

[Truth2Tell]

28. Here here!

Agreed completely. Nor do I have much use for incessant straw man-building left-bashers.

[sendero]

7. I agree...

.... am I happy with every decision a certain new standard-bearer has made? Not in the least. But I feel a sort of incredulous amusement at folks that think there is anyone out there with any chance of being elected that would not make some decisions I don't care for.

I'm looking for an overall right direction, not my idea of perfection.

And no president, not ONE, has inherited the number and gravity of challenges our new one faces.

[tkmorris]

10. What you call an "ideologue"....

Other people call "people who know which side of the fence they are on". There really is a difference between people who have closed their minds and people who simply know what they believe in.

[slackmaster]

15. There isn't just one fence

I think a proper synonym for what the OP intended as the operative definition of ideology here is "package deal". At least that's how I view it.

[droidamus2]

11. Sad but true

I agree that ideologues tend to want everything their way. This is true of both the far right and the far left. For 8 years the far left (I am definitely well left of center myself) fought against the Republican right and they are so used to fighting the 'right wing' that they are just shifting to fighting the right wing of their own party. I am not a huge fan of 'conservative' Democrats but I much prefer them over conservative Republicans. Ideology is good as far as pulling the country in one direction or the other but is not always practical when it comes to actually governing and getting things done. I think the ideologues on the far left need to pick their battles wisely and try to make sure legislation or whatever gets passed for those rather than insisting everything be done their way. What I want from an Obama administration and from what I see so far I expect to get it is a competent, intelligent government that is willing to listen to all sides, find the best solutions and actually make them work. If that doesn't fit into somebodies idea of ideological purity too bad.

[KharmaTrain]

13. Some Feel "Owed"

It's amusing (and predictable) that no sooner were the ballots counted, some of us did a victory lap, that the angst and anger would begin. Yep, Obama didn't nominate who I wanted, didn't say the things I wanted as quickly as I wanted him to or is already "selling out" even before he's put a team in place and set foot in the office. It's as though some think that it was THEIR vote that won it all or they have a quid pro quo...they voted for him, so he better deliver AND NOW. It doesn't matter the reality, he promised, he promised...or at least some think he promised. This was supposed to be "liberal/progressive heaven"...too bad those who believe that never bothered to listen to what the man actually said.

Let's be even more clear...this country is screwed. We have an economy in depression, two wars and who knows how many more bombshells the booooosh regime is leaving behind. We don't have the luxuary to have ideologues...we saw over the 8 years what that type of rule consists of. Time to get out of campaign mode and get in to governing mode...it's something the GOOPers can't do, I'm grateful President Obama, at this time, is.

Creating a more progressive country or pushing the agenda is a long-term goal...one that will go from election to election and issue by issue. Healthcare reform is most definitely needed, so is more money for schools, rebuilding infrastructure...the list is big, and it's gonna take years to straighten things up before we can move forward. I'm grateful it appears we have people in charge who understand what's going on rather than another 4 years of the parallel universe.

Cheers...

[bigtree]

33. that's just bull

you assume people are complaining about labels just because they've used them to identify folks they disagree with on policy. It's not as if there aren't clear records of where these appointees stand and what they've supported in the past. It just makes perfect sense to point to those differences they have with Obama's promised policy and express objections that they were chosen over folks who actually share his views and have demonstrated that support in the past by their actions.

it sounds like you want us to wipe their slate clean and impose Obama's views onto them. That's a hell of a lot more premature than pointing out where these folks have stood and expressing doubt and regret that more enthusiastic supporters of Obama's policy intentions weren't chosen.

The defense of the new president has caused some folks to develop deliberate amnesia. I wouldn't recommend that.

[Le Taz Hot]

17. And I don't have much use for

blind devotion to a political organization that represents the same constituency as the Republicans. It's not a frame of mind that's conducive to reflective thought. It leads to "cuuby (sic) hole thinking". (incorrect punctuation) It leads to reactionary "thinking.(forgot to close quotation marks) And that's not thinking at all.(This doesn't need to be a separate sentence.)

People and issues are more complex than blind followers recognize. And being glued to blind devotion too often leads to hyperbole and hysteria, not to mention a purity litmus test.

Yada yada yada. Make my point?

[cali]

22. It's not either/or.

I don't support the DLC. But at least I recognize that it's not a clone of the Heritage Foundation on most issues. And I don't make the moronic mistake of over estimating its power. And no, you didn't make any point. Correcting my sloppy punctuation is hardly making a point, dear. Try again.

[Le Taz Hot]

25. The sloppy punctuation was just a bonus.

:evilgrin:

[eridani]

18. Some say ideologues; others say unpaid lobbyiste for progressive causes

You don't ask for what you want, you will never get even a watered down version of it. If you want to sell your used car for $3000, ask for $5000.

[Fumesucker]

20. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

If it doesn't get greased it falls off eventually.

But what is the squeak to which politicians most earnestly hark?

That is the question.

[MadHound]

23. I don't have much use for people who engage in stereotypical thinking

Which is what you're doing here. Especially with your broad brush statement that "virtually nothing will satisfy the ideologues of the Counterpunch flavor." Ignoring the strange little statement about Counterpunch, the fact of the matter is that liberals and progressives around here haven't been saying that we want everything our way, all the time. What we are saying is that we'd like a seat at the table, not just the kid's table. Sorry, but that's what Barnes and Beccera are, seats at the kids table. Somebody like Kucinich in HHS or commerce would have sent a fine message of gratitude for all the liberal's hard work. But instead those plum appointments have gone to the Clintons and Daschles of the party, center, center right ideologues who are assured of stumping for the corporatist POV.

But hey, why pay attention to me, you've already got it in your head that I'm some sort of ideologue who won't be satisfied unless I get my way on everything:eyes:

Show me one post where I or any other liberal has made that statement. If not, then stop with your broad brush strokes.

[Joe Fields]

24. And I don't have much use for people who still call themselves democrats.

When we know that they are, by their actions anything but....

Just expressing what I believe.

[Festivito]

26. Are you zealous in this ideology about useless ideologues?

Don't mind me, I just wonder a lot. Or, is that wander. I wonder. Oh. Am I wandering. Wonderful. I'm wandering. No, I'm wondering if I'm wandering. Wandering through wondering? I have no idea.

NEVER MIND.

Anyone have a picture of Gilda Radner handy?

ON EDIT, Found one.

[bvar22]

27. "Centrism" is also an ideology, and its acolytes at DU also demand purity.

Unlike most other Ideologies, "Centrism" has no foundation in any particular Issue or Ideal.
There are no lines of demarcation....no "Issue" on which to make a stand.
It is perfect for shallow thinkers or externally validated individuals seeking authoritarian approval and the comfort of the Middle of the Herd.. For a Centrist, whatever the Media says is in the middle is good enough for them.

A Centrist government is damned to mediocrity, and only small changes in the Status Quo.

Demands for Centrist Purity abound on DU, though those making the demands don't usually realize it.


"The only thing in the Middle of the Road are Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos"---Jim Hightower



Jim Hightower would have been great as Sec of Agriculture, but he has criticized BIG Corporations, so there is no room for him in a Right/Center administration. THAT is an opposing voice they don't want to hear.

[Truth2Tell]

29. Well, you must not have much use for Obama's picks then,

because they are a bunch of ideologues.

Maybe not progressive ideologues, but certainly ideologues. They are - almost all of them - ideological proponents of unfettered free-markets, globalization, American exceptionalism and military interventionism.

Not only powerful ideologies, but largely bankrupt ideologies.

[bigtree]

30. you operate here, with a zealous fervor in your criticisms, with some sort of ideology

. . . behind all of your venom. Maybe you won't categorize it, but I don't think your efforts here at DU are as free from an ideological' bent as you might imagine.

All you're trying to do here is carve out some special place for your own views as you trash others'.

That's really most of what you do here; trash others' views.

[Forkboy]

31. I'm glad you show no signs of being one.

;)

Seriously though, every single person on DU is to one degree or another. If you have no use for them you're in the wrong place. And while it may feel good to raise yourself above being being one, I think you're just fooling yourself. :shrug:

Just expressing what I believe.

[superduperfarleft]

32. You're a lot more articulate than DU's other resident condescending narcissist.

I'll give you that.

[ulysses]

34. what, is this your word for the night?

Do tell - what is an "ideologue" in your world?