What Does Liberal Bashing Accomplish?

[laughingliberal]

Poll question: What Does Liberal Bashing Accomplish?

Have just been thinking a lot, lately, about how much left bashing I've seen here and by some within the current administration. It does not seem an intelligent strategy to me but I was interested in seeing what we thought the results of that strategy would be. Clearly, most on DU are of the ilk of those who will try to elect more progressive reps but will vote for a Dem over a Republican almost 100% of the time. Also clear, though, is DUers are not the average voter. So, what do you think the effect will be?

[treestar]

1. Not sure, I think likely the first

If I were a Repuke I'd try to make sure the swing voters knew I thought the teabaggers and the neocons were nuts.

We point to teabaggers to undermine repukes, so it's logical they point to the far left to make it seem like we all think that way.

It would be easy for Repukes to appeal to swing voters with: see, they aren't satisfied that they are getting enough of your hard earned money.

[LWolf]

12. "They," in this case,

are Democrats and other DUers, not republicans. The OP refers to the bashing of the left on DU and by the current Democratic administration.

[TheIdiot]

26. oh... well then, never mind. nt

[dmallind]

2. What does the DLC and centrist bashing accomplish? It started much earlier & is much stronger here

[laughingliberal]

3. Well, wasn't in my question. Perhaps you could make your own poll. nt

[dmallind]

4. The fact you didn't think to question or even acknowledge it

May be part of the problem. Because what to me PERSONALLY liberal "bashing" (by which I assume you mean pointing out political impossibility of immediately achieving the entire Green/DSA agenda and the inadvisability of even trying) achieves is some small measure of self-defense and damage control to counter years of being told I am a traitor, a Republican, a paid shill of "corporatofascists" or (some such student-lounge faux-radical terminology), a cancer on the party who should be removed as soon as possible, and so on.

[laughingliberal]

16. I had a focus secondary to the situation going on in the MA race right now where the right is

enthused and the left is apathetic. There is nothing stopping you from posting your own poll. By liberal bashing I am referring to things like Rahm Emanuel calling the ads some of our left leaning groups raised money for to support the public option (which at that time we heard the President still favored), "fucking stupid." Then we hear he stated the left was "irrelevant."

If you think it serves the purposes of the party well, then carry on. Your right to express your opinion is guaranteed in the constitution.

[cliffordu]

21. Yes, but part of your answer is contained in that question.

Not that you really seem to care about a real one.

[laughingliberal]

22. Perhaps you could explain what benefit you think the party gains by left bashing

I tried to think of all the possible benefits to the strategy. I believe many think standing up to the left woos the moderates and Republicans a little. I also think the Blue Dogs favor a push to the right for the party and suppressing the liberal vote will accomplish that. If there are other positive benefits to this, I'm open to hearing them. One thing I don't think it will accomplish is any push towards getting more progressive legislation or policy in place.

[cliffordu]

33. When people who claim to be from 'the left' call the president warmonger

and claim he is the same as Bush, and accuse people like me of being DINOS or tools of the DLC - They'll get a reaction.

My reaction is to call them purity police and other, more egregious names. The worst names I can come up with for those who obviously don't want real conversation - just name call the Prez and the Democratic party as it

wallows towards irrelevance - adrift in the center, like a scow adrift in the Hudson.

Who is "the left" on DU??? The real left??

Mostly, they are people I identify with more than the real centrists that are here.

I'm about EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL PEOPLE IN EVERY WAY. Health care and an excellent public education for all, K through College. unions, nationalized oil companies, tightly reigned in financial sectors that serve the people rather than the rich fucks on wall street. NO CORPORATE TAX EXEMPTIONS.

And a government free of K street.

But I am completely aware of the world we live, and although I don't like it one fucking bit, and haven't for almost 40 years, I have to say this to the very extreme left:

You are correct in 90% of what you want for the US and the world. But until you are ready to fight and maybe die in the streets for what you believe, the name calling and the hate is posturing and a distraction to the work that needs to be done.

If you hate what this country has become, TRULY HATE IT, the only answer is revolution.

Think the East Germans before the wall came down, think the students in France in the '70's.

You know that will not happen, you know that Americans won't do that. It would disrupt American Idol and the Survivor finals.

The money boys are a couple press conferences away from convincing the American public that you are terrorists. You really start something huge and there you are.

Slow and steady is all we got. There are no Americans brave enough to martyr themselves around anymore.


I WILL NOT undermine the crumbs we're going to (maybe) get under this administration to make a point.

I will NOT take a stance that is so rigid and so pure that I spend another 10 years talking about the fascist warmongering state in bars and coffeehouses at the U of O and doing nothing about it.

After the war protests in the early '70's there were no revolutionaries left. Almost all became bourgeoisie small business owners or went to wall street or fell into the drug culture like I did.

But maybe this isn't really about 'center' or 'left' or 'corporatists' or 'activists'.....


Here's the question:

Are there a couple of people - or maybe several - who actually hate the President, who inflame what should be robust discussions on policy and potential action into the putrid attacks you are talking about?

Are they sucking people in who are rightfully angry to are more extreme in their hostility than those people normally would? Are they working both sides of the fence?

BOTH sides of this - "the left" and "the Centrists" are to blame for being sucked in, I believe.

We've all seen the Rove Ratfucks and the RNC tactics before, why would ANY Of us be so naive as to believe that isn't true now.

The hatred has become more vituperative and fucking insane the closer the vote on health care comes to fruition, I gotta believe that's the only answer.

I'm getting tired. Tired of the whining and the threats by the very people who will come in here and call the President names and yell FUCK OBAMA at the top of their lungs.

At that point it's not being about the left, it's about abusing the people on this board, not activism. It's just hate and disgust. At what we hated back in 1969, and 74 and 85......


My solution would be to get the corporations out of the white house and congress, and get these fucking these scumbag lobbyists out of Washington once and for all.

I have NO idea how to do this.

As long as a president or representative cannot get elected without the corporations, we are an afterthought.

Remember "the centrists" are getting fucked right along with those on the left.

And just because you don't believe we know it, doesn't mean we don't completely understand how completely fucked we are.

If you have an active path to doing what we know needs to be done, yell that. Yell at us to get back on the barricades, into the faces of the bankers, the K street shitbags. The bought and paid for congress.

But don't call me names. I got called a butcher and a murderer after Vietnam, and there ain't anything anyone can call me that'll change one fucking thing.




This is all my opinion and observation, and you've paid for exactly what it's worth. YMMV.

Flame on.

[laughingliberal]

36. Well, I was with you all the way there until your "flame on" closing

I asked a legitimate question in my poll and I have asked it before. The question is who benefits by the alienation of our liberal members. I don't think the centrists are going anywhere. I see them here perfectly willing to believe there is 'lots of good stuff' in a health care reform bill that I believe will be the eventual death of the working and middle classes. I see some make excuses for the continued bailout of the financial institutions. I agree the centrists are being hurt by what is going on as are all the American people. I have tried to explain the problems with some of the policies and have not screamed and yelled that the president is a liar or 'fuck obama' or any of that. But I have been met with the same vitriol as if I had said these things. And I am really, really pissed off at the insults from the CofS and think if the President believes he needs this man in his administration he might consider muzzling the man's antagonism towards us. If he fails to do that it leaves me wondering if this reflects the president's intent, as well.

I have not threatened to vote against Democrats and I have not threatened not to vote. I have said that DU is not the average voter and that, although most of us will go pissed off to the polls and pull that lever again for the lesser of 2 evils, the general electorate, even Democrats, are not that sensible at times. And I'm almost certain the average Democratic voter who is unhappy with the current direction would do a real 'fuck you' to anyone who told them to STFU and quit whining about their pony.

I completely agree the answer would be to get the corporations and lobbyists out of the White House and Congress and I, also, have no idea how to do that. I do believe in letting the elected officials know my thoughts on their complicity with the selling of America to the corporations. I am sure it has little effect but I suppose my thoughts are they can't say no one told them we were unhappy about it. However, I regularly see posters here defending an agenda of corporatism. Surely, you couldn't have missed posts proclaiming the poster to be 'a PROUD corporatist.' That's a bit disturbing. I'm not sure if I'm reading a post from someone who does not understand the road to fascism or someone who thinks that road is just dandy. These are the things that cause me to believe some who seem to be my party 'right or wrong' supporters of the administration are unaware of how completely fucked we are. Or, perhaps, there are those among us who are reaping the benefits of this current system. We really do not know who anyone is here, do we?

That said, my total point here was to ask if it is helpful to bash on those who are already feeling disenfranchised within the party. Those who staunchly defend every action of the administration do not seem in danger of bolting. If the intent is to keep everyone within the fold and garner the votes needed to win elections I'm thinking there are more persuasive ways to go about it. The relentlessness of the attacks on 'the left' seem to be having a different effect.

I believe there are those on both sides of these debates whose purpose is to drive these wedges. I believe the right wing is more than capable of sending posters in here to try and further piss off the left to suppress the votes and I believe they are capable of sending posters here who claim leftist tendencies to stir up and keep the anger on the left going. I do not lay the blame on all one side of this. I do have grave concerns at those who take a 'fuck you, you're not getting a pony' attitude towards the left wing of the party. I'm just wondering, again, what could possibly be gained by that. I have been able to say to many here that it was obvious we were not going to agree and try to leave it at that only to have them continue to hurl accusations and push their point of view. That's not civil discourse. Both sides seem to be digging in and refusing to give any ground and it is not helpful from either side.

It took me a while to respond to this as I needed to give it some thought.

[cliffordu]

37. I was not referring to you, but to the folks that will inevitably flame me for

writing what I did - I'll read your reply as soon as I wake up.

[laughingliberal]

38. No problem. ttyl nt

[Romulox]

9. I'll answer: it is an effort to combat the mainstreaming of their rightwing ideology.

American "centrist" = Europe's far right. :hi:

[rudy23]

13. Well, the DLC has stated goals that run counter to the traditional goals of the Democratic Party

Is a pro-life, pro-corporate, hawk who wants to bust unions and deregulate big business a Democrat, just because they have a D by their name? The DLC thinks so, and that's why the "bashing", or criticism of their stances.

Also, it's not like the DLC isn't coming after us. They have been since April, when Rahm's Message Discipline team was formed. They really want to remake the Democratic Party as anti-union, pro-corporate, and think they can use sheer harassment to do it.

[Individualist]

27. True, and liberal bashing is part of their attempt to destroy the party from within.

[LWolf]

15. It's a natural consequence

of being "one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards."

The DLC is not "left-wing."

[tblue]

5. Nothing good I can think of.

Can't find a choice in your poll that works for me.

[happy_liberal]

6. Prepares the propaganda necessary for stealing the election

I voted
"Suppress the liberal vote in 2010 electing more Republicans and facilitate a Move to the Right"

but I think that is more the propaganda they are creating in order to steal the election.

Many DUers are unhappy with certain policy decisions but that doesn't mean they don't see the big picture.

The problem is, if we do not push Obama in the right(actually left) direction, some Dems might stay home from the polls.

If we say we are unhappy with policy we are helping the right wing corporate media machine.

We have to find a way to support our president while respectfully disagreeing, and we need to speak up enough so that he understands we are not happy with his decisions and makes some changes so people will feel that their vote does matter.

I feel we are in a catch 22 here.

[Hello_Kitty]

7. Everything is an excuse for the DLC to push Dems to the right. Literally everything.

If Coakley loses tomorrow, it will be seen by them as a clear sign that Dems need to tack to the right. Same goes if she wins tomorrow. DLCers are like Republicans are with tax cuts with. Tax cuts are always the solution to Republicans and tacking to the right is always the solution to the DLC.

[LWolf]

8. While I chose

"Suppress the liberal vote in 2010 electing more Republicans and facilitate a Move to the Right," I could also have chosen other:

"Make it clear to all that 1. Either the Democratic Party has evolved into a republican shadow party, or 2. There are faux-democrats who view real democrats much as republicans do."

[DJ13]

10. +1

"the Democratic Party has evolved into a republican shadow party"

The corporate cons have migrated from the broken GOP into our party to continue running (ruining) the country.

The DLC was the beach head for their eventual assault.

Now they need to minimize the real liberals to make it work.

[WeDidIt]

11. Other

Push polls suck.

[laughingliberal]

17. That's why I put "other," as a choice. I can only see so many reasons some may engage in this

There may be benefits of this strategy I can not see or perceive.

[Go2Peace]

14. pseudo-fascism has arrived and we are all being led to "Unity" in a single way of thinking

The propaganda is so heavy that even those that did not start as Right wing are being convinced of their world view.
I think this happens in every country that moves into fundamentalism or fascism. People lose perspective and "generational memory" and think that this is just the way life works.

Eventually you end up where free thinkers are ostracized and then later criminalized. You know it is on the way when even folks who are supposed to be "liberal" are caught up in the storm and are fighting dissenters.

[dionysus]

18. your error is that you think everyone who doesn't agree with you is to your right.

[laughingliberal]

19. Most people are to my right based on the demographics of the country and the party

but I think the poll is asking what purpose the beating up on the 'left of the left' as Rahm referred to us is serving. I, personally, think it is a voter suppression effort and I shared that opinion with the White House noting that if it wasn't their intent they might want to tone down the anti-left rhetoric for a while.

There may be other purposes which is why I had more choices in the poll. Some think looking tough on liberals will attract centrists or Republicans to the party. Others are just pissed and it makes them feel better to beat up on others. And, there are, likely, motives of which I am unaware which is why I included 'Other' as an option.

[freddie mertz]

20. Seems like some on DU are going to blame "leftbaggers" for a Coakley loss.

I guess voters in Mass. are not to blame for their own votes.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=388&topic_id=13383&mesg_id=13383

[LostInAnomie]

23. Bullshit push poll.

All the BS histrionics about who is a liberal and what the liberal position should be is fucking idiotic.

[laughingliberal]

24. "histrionics about who is a liberal and what the liberal position should be..."

I always find this a good start

A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy:

Acceptance Speech of the New York
Liberal Party Nomination

September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html

[LostInAnomie]

25. So, anyone opposed to the position you have staked out for yourself...

... and have invoked JFK over is automatically not a liberal. That's either conceit or being misinformed.

[laughingliberal]

29. I guess I'm wondering where I said that.

That's my definition of a liberal. Feel free to use your own for your purposes.

[LostInAnomie]

30. Well, to start with...

... you posted a bullshit push poll painting anyone disagreeing with your definition of "liberal" as working to elect Republicans, hating liberals, marching in party lock-step, and having other ridiculous motives. Then, you invoked JFK to prove how pure of a liberal you are. You don't have to say those exact words, but it's not hard to see where you're shooting from.

[laughingliberal]

31. perhaps we should call Rahm and ask him who he meant when he said 'left of the left' then we can all

know who, precisely, is being bashed.

I have been a follower of JFK since I went with my parents to the polls when they voted for him in 1960. His life and death had a profound impact on my early life and I have read and studied much of what he and other leaders of that era said on issues. I also met MLK 2 days before he was killed in my hometown when my parents met with him to support the sanitation workers' strike.My beliefs of what is considered liberal and, more importantly, what policies move us towards a more just and fair society for all were formed early and I have found no philosophies in the intervening years I think would improve on those principles. I did have a brother who got caught up in that Reagan revolution thing and became a Reagan Democrat but he has since regretted it.

I'm sure there are those who call themselves liberal who would disagree with me on some issues. As I said you are free to define it for yourself. I decided what it meant for me a long time ago. And I did not say anyone who does not agree with my definition of liberal is ...blah...blah...blah...

I hear you that you think my poll was 'bullshit." You are, of course, free to make your own.

[WonderGrunion]

28. What does Obama bashing accomplish?

I haven't attacked anyone, liberal, conservative or in-between, that has not first attacked Obama or the Democratic party. When you call my President a lair or my Party liars; when you claim my President or Party have "thrown you under a bus"; when you say that my President and Party is no better than murderous war criminal George "W" Bush and his neo-con thugs then you will get bashed incessantly by myself and any other party loyalists that happen to support Democrats on Democratic Underground.

Exactly what effect do you think it has to have someone piss and moan that your Party and your beliefs suck but you should still bow down and grovel for their vote every time an election comes up that is vital to maintaining a Democratic majority.

[laughingliberal]

32. Perhaps you could make a poll on that

I am assuming you are addressing all those who dissent and not me, personally, because I have kept my 'pissing and moaning' to objections to policies.

I would say if the administration does not think it is helpful for the left to say they were 'thrown under the bus," they might rethink letting the CofS tell the press the ads our left leaning groups ran to gain support for a public option (back when the President was still voicing support for it) were "fucking stupid." Sure felt like being under the bus to me.

And I am still asking those who are unhappy about dissent to explain to me exactly what our President meant when he told us, "make me do it."

[Political Heretic]

35. I can answer that, though I don't accept your terming it "Obama Bashing"

What does giving critical policy analysis that shows the gross failures of Democrats and this administration to put liberal principles first or prioritize the needs of working class Americans ahead of the whims of the financial elite? What does that accomplish? I believe telling the truth and acting on the truth accomplishes more than continual service to the same old political cycle.

Our political-economic system has deeply entrenched injustices that won't be solved by either party as long as they both continue to ignore these structural failings and focusing only on what can be "changed" within the parameters and "rules" of a system that is unjust.

Pointing out the injustices, proving class analysis, raising the substantive issues of inequality built right into the very way we do political business in modern America - the only hope can be that enough people become fed up and say enough. And that, like at other points in history, ordinary people begin to build a new Civil Rights movement - one that is this time focused squarely on the issue of economic justice. That we can study the history of the first Civil Rights movement and learn lessons about how to awaken hearts and minds and mobilize people to act. That we will stop supporting those who actively work against the needs of ordinary Americans, whether due to lack of courage or due to pure disdain.

Any hope of real change of the failures intrinsic in our political system is going to mean some difficult fights and some dark days in the short run. Yes, it could mean that in the middle of the battle Republicans win some short term victories. I don't want that, and would be happy to minimize that wherever possible, but that's part of the battle - part of the struggle against a failed and oppressive political economy and toward a government that truly serves the people again.

In the long run, mobilizing ordinary people to demand economic justice as a civil right will mean better candidates for government, with long term victories over dysfunctional republicans who always fail at leading that will mean something - an awakened mobilized movement able to demand accountability from government.

Can I guarantee any of that will happen? Of course not. But the alternative to trying is totally unacceptable to me. That's why no matter what you say, no matter how many times you try to say it, I will never (EDIT - again) be swayed by the argument that we must vote for bad Democratic politicians because the alternative is worse.

Fighting back for the rights ordinary Americans deserve may mean some short term dark days. But it is the only fight with the potential for long term true change, and I've got the courage to fight the fight, even if it's difficult.

[Political Heretic]

34. Thought your post was refering to establishment democrats as "liberals"

So I wrote this:

What does it accomplish? I believe telling the truth and acting on the truth accomplishes more than continual service to the same old political cycle.

Our political-economic system has deeply entrenched injustices that won't be solved by either party as long as they both continue to ignore these structural failings and focusing only on what can be "changed" within the parameters and "rules" of a system that is unjust.

Pointing out the injustices, proving class analysis, raising the substantive issues of inequality built right into the very way we do political business in modern America - the only hope can be that enough people become fed up and say enough. And that, like at other points in history, ordinary people begin to build a new Civil Rights movement - one that is this time focused squarely on the issue of economic justice. That we can study the history of the first Civil Rights movement and learn lessons about how to awaken hearts and minds and mobilize people to act. That we will stop supporting those who actively work against the needs of ordinary Americans, whether due to lack of courage or due to pure disdain.

Any hope of real change of the failures intrinsic in our political system is going to mean some difficult fights and some dark days in the short run. Yes, it could mean that in the middle of the battle Republicans win some short term victories. I don't want that, and would be happy to minimize that wherever possible, but that's part of the battle - part of the struggle against a failed and oppressive political economy and toward a government that truly serves the people again.

In the long run, mobilizing ordinary people to demand economic justice as a civil right will mean better candidates for government, with long term victories over dysfunctional republicans who always fail at leading that will mean something - an awakened mobilized movement able to demand accountability from government.

Can I guarantee any of that will happen? Of course not. But the alternative to trying is totally unacceptable to me. That's why no matter what you say, no matter how many times you try to say it, I will never be swayed by the argument that we must vote for bad Democratic politicians because the alternative is worse.

Fighting back for the rights ordinary Americans deserve may mean some short term dark days. But it is the only fight with the potential for long term true change, and I've got the courage to fight the fight, even if it's difficult.