Question for the Sensible and the Pragmatists

[Capitalocracy]

Let me start off by saying if we both have the same goals but slightly differing ideas on how to get there, I don't know why we focus on our differences instead of what we have in common. As a matter of fact, I think the elements we bring to the table, loyalty and hard work for the party and criticism and demanding excellence from the party, are both qualities we should ALL work to maintain within ourselves.

But I digress. I have a question for you guys.

If Obama were more forceful in fighting for a progressive agenda, if he was a little more rough-and-tumble, if he called out the Republicans more and didn't reach out or give in to them as much, in other words, if he were, in your opinion, acting too much like an idealist and not pragmatically enough, would you be critical of this method of governance and would you voice your opposition to it?

[geek tragedy]

1. Depends on the results.

If he failed to get stuff passed, then yes we would be critical.

[Capitalocracy]

2. Thanks for answering.

OK, so it's not about unconditional support, it's about you agreeing with the policy where others might not?

[geek tragedy]

4. It's about what makes the country and a world a better

place for ourselves and the coming generations.

It wouldn't be pragmatic to support going along to get along if that produced bad policy results.

In terms of what he has achieved, the measuring stick isn't what happened vs what I wish had happened, but rather what happened vs what was the best plausible outcome.

[daleanime]

6. Why should 'wishes' enter into it?

isn't it where we are vs where we need to be?

[geek tragedy]

8. Where we need to be vs where we can get right now.

Sadly, we can't do everything we need to do.

[daleanime]

11. I believe you mean well....

and that 'most' every one here is sincere(after all we do have some running troll-dogs), but look at the Gulf of Mexico, check the rate that the ice caps are melting, check out the growing income gap, the destruction of the middle class, how many people die each day from lack of health care, etc, etc, etc, etc,....


Have we really done all that we can? I feel that we're capable of so much more and it's frustrating to see us settle for less when the stakes are this high.


:banghead:

[geek tragedy]

12. What we can do as a society is limited by our political system.

And, quite honestly, voters are stupid and send people like Michelle Bachmann to Congress.

[Davis_X_Machina]

3. Depends on if it actually accomplished anything...

...because that's what 'pragmatic' implies.

[Capitalocracy]

5. So you think nothing would get accomplished

governing the way I described above? Because a lot of us think more would get accomplished. Do you think maybe that's where the rift comes in?

[Davis_X_Machina]

9. We don't know ex ante...

....that it would accomplish more or less. And a pragmatist isn't going to render an ex ante judgment on something -- then they wouldn't be a pragmatist.

[TheWatcher]

7. Sensible and Pragmatists in the same sentence?

Best. Laugh. EVAR!

:rofl:

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. Very interesting question.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Davis_X_Machina]

14. False dichotomies? On DU? Never! Unpossible! n/t

[LoZoccolo]

15. I wouldn't withhold my vote over it.

If it shows itself not to work and extinguishes all his plans I would probably give the constructive criticism that he should try something else.

But I wouldn't get my feelings hurt or threaten to vote third-party or Republican, and would probably expect it to at least do some good, which is better than none.

[Capitalocracy]

16. I don't think anyone's threatening to vote Republican.

Some may be expressing their desire to vote for a third party (I certainly wouldn't rule it out for myself) but most of the time I'm seeing people on DU saying they're going to vote but not donate or volunteer, or they'll donate to specific candidates they like rather than the general fund that tends to go disproportionately to "tight" (read: blue dog) races, which is a great idea if you want to have a voice in the party, or when they say that the Dems will lose votes because they don't energize their base, they're talking about a natural statistical consequence, not their own voting plans. And I've literally NEVER seen someone on DU say they're going to vote Republican (maybe you have, but I haven't).

I think what you're not seeing that we're afraid of is that if we continue voting for Democrats for fear of Republicans, but those Democrats AND the Republicans we fear continue moving toward the right, then some kind of wake-up call is necessary or else imminent doom will not be avoided. And for that to happen, correct us if we're wrong and if you have a better idea, we're not seeing any possibilities that don't involve demanding more from our party, giving our party honest criticism and holding them up to a higher standard, and basically being bold enough to ask the question: why are they so worried about what the Republicans think when the Republicans don't and will never vote for them, and why do they care so little about the needs of the people who not only vote for them but turn the wheels of their electoral machine on the brute force of their activism and what little money they can manage to set aside for donations? You don't see how people could feel offended by that?