dem unified front?

[ulysses]

The Magistrate, whose contributions in this world I value highly, suggests in another thread that it would be good if the elected Democrats were to present a unified front to all Republican onslaughts. He's probably right in that.

My question is this, as it has been for some years now: are we to unify under the "expedience" banner, the "ideology" banner, or something in between? Dem centrists like to portray progressives in the same light as GOP wingnuts - if that's true, it might be of note that the wingnuts are becoming fed up with the GOP. So, under whose banner do we unify?

[babylonsister]

1. I can't imagine that happening, at least not yet. But I will defer and

eat popcorn! :popcorn:

[Monkeyman]

2. I will drink JB

[ulysses]

5. hope you didn't pop too much.

:shrug:

[TwilightGardener]

3. I think the problem with Dems putting up a unified front is one of

basic progressive philosophy--the Democratic party is inherently more conducive to change and more open to other points of view. That is a strength, not a weakness. If Dems start demanding rigid compliance from its members on certain issues, we will lose what makes us who we are--free thinkers, always looking for a better way, and open to compromise to get stuff done.

[ulysses]

4. possibly,

but then how to counter the Repuke lockstep? I understand The Magistrate's point, I just see more than a few roadblocks to achieving it.

[mmonk]

6. Hard question.

For me, its an issue of right and wrong. I guess convince them that we are the party that has less wrong. I'm pretty sure we're not going to be united though. So we have to approach it from that angle.

[TwilightGardener]

7. The Repug lockstep may block us from getting our bills thru, but it

doesn't really serve them either--they look obstructionist and overtly partisan, and they lost in '06--not a sign of public support. There has to be some give on both sides for anything to get done. That's just the way the math works. Ideology will be trumped by pragmatism, and maybe that's as it should be.

[ulysses]

8. "Ideology will be trumped by pragmatism" - will it?

The Bush II administration has witnessed pragmatism repeatedly trumped by neoconservative ideology more times than I can count. Yes, they lost last year, but not by a fuck of a lot, and things could have turned out differently.

Ideology isn't necessarily the enemy - after all, I don't think most of us are here out of a pathological need to win at something. We're here because of what we believe.

[TwilightGardener]

10. Democrats allowed themselves to be swayed or silenced by the

Neocons. Look at how many Dems voted for the IWR. Look at how long it took them to find any guts about opposing the war--most waited until it really started going sour to start grousing. Look at Pelosi declaring that she won't even consider impeachment--how the hell does she know that, does she have a crystal ball? A united front is not necessarily the answer, but some fucking guts sure is.

[WillyT]

9. Shhh...

The people's front of Judea.



And then there's the popular front.



And then there's herding cats.



And then there's the Beatles.

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan

:evilgrin:

[Forkboy]

11. Always look on the bright side of life!

[WillyT]

12. Whistling Away As I Post !!!

Life's a piece of shit,
when you look at it.

:hi:

[ulysses]

13. !

:rofl:

[ConsAreLiars]

14. What Magistrate doesn't understand, thus lending power to disruptors,

the idea of a "unified front" is a pie-in-the-sky delusion, to put it simply. What is needed is a United Front. It can never be created by holier-than-thou denunciations of other allies because they are "impure."

In US history United Fronts have been formed around every important social struggle, and they included everything from Jesuits to anarcho-syndicalists. The effectiveness of those movements was built by the realization of all "extremes" (from centrists to outliers) that more is better when it comes to the people's movements for peace and justice. By allying himself with the splitters, he serves only as a wedge, just like those simply denounce elected Dems for their limitations.

(edit a bunch for maybe clarity)

[babylonsister]

15. No idea is perfect, and the Dems reflect that. I for one welcome

the fronts with all their warts. Our ultimate goal is the same. I do understand that unity will perhaps make anything happen faster, but I just don't see that ever happening, unless there is a 'moment'.
A 'moment' for a smoker would be when he or she has a heart attack; time to quit smoking.
Our 'moment' might come when not 3 people are killed daily, but maybe 100 are taken out.
That would get everyone's attention. Too bad that's what it probably will take.