So which of my "angry left"positions should I cave in on?

[walldude]

I just spent an hour writing a heartfelt post about my feelings of being an "angry lefty". Then I deleted it before I hit post. Congratulations to those who are angry at the far left, you have me censoring myself.

Instead of the heartfelt post which kinda sounded like I was whining I decided to give you "center" people or whatever it is those of you who are angry at the "far left" call yourselves a chance to tell me exactly what opinion and values I need to change to "fit in".

These are the things making me angry, please inform me which ones I should throw to the curb.

Illegal Wars
GLBT Rights
Unemployment
Health Care for all
Well regulated financial industry.
A clean environment.
Safe food and water.
Well funded public education.
Strong Unions.
Public Campaign Financing.
Privacy rights.

I'm sure I forgot some but these are pretty much the basis for my far left beliefs. So tell me, what is it I need to do to start "fitting in"? I keep hearing about how we all need to get on the same page or it's certain doom. So tell me what is it you want from people like me? You have my vote. Always have. When I voted for Obama it was the first time in my life I voted for someone I actually believed in. I wasn't voting the lesser of two evils I really liked the guy. Well, I was wrong about that one, my apologies to the Hillary people, I don't know if she would have been better but only a Republican could do worse. So tell me, for those of you angry at the far left, what is it they need to do to get in your good graces?

[dionysus]

1. is this todays "sorry hillary" post?

:shrug:

[walldude]

2. Have there been others?

Like I said I'm not sure she would have been any better but...

[dionysus]

5. there's about one a day lately.

:hi:

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[McCamy Taylor]

30. Huh? So, who won? The forces of corporate fascism? You do your party no help with this

kind of attitude.

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. Whatever

The only thing the so-called progressives have amply demonstrated in the last 10 years is that they can accomplish zero electorally, with the exception of putting Bush in office and other nonsenses. It's just shocking that they are so willing to repeat these mistakes twice in a ten year span. This is once-every-thirty-years kind of stupidity.

[scheming daemons]

38. It's this week's talking point... "if only we picked Hillary!"

[Forkboy]

39. Hillary was my last pick, and I agree with the OP.

Next copout response? I note an actual answer eluded you....

[McCamy Taylor]

29. The left hated Clinton.

[gratuitous]

3. Please report to the pee narcs for your drug test

That will tell us what we need to know to better advise you on what you shouldn't be angry about. Thank you for your cooperation.

[RandomThoughts]

4. I would take doom over fitting in, if the system is shown unjust.

But I would not do anything to support doom.

That is a trap, to get people to either think they are part of doom if they do not go along, or to get them to think something is going to be doomish.

If everything unacceptable is the same as anything else unacceptable, then really doom or gloom, or anything else is the same.


Note, I am still due cash for beer and travel, so in personal observation, things have not been corrected. So doing nothing seems to still be best.

Might as well stand, and not worry about the doomers


Another thought, some of that is to get people to think life is doomish, which is the attempt of doom, and why FDR said all we have to fear is fear itself, the only doom is doom itself.

So just do what you think is best.

Why Worry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_03uXQiz6eY

[Lucian]

6. Why would you cave in on any of those issues?

I won't ever cave in on my issues to appeal to anyone else. Fuck them.

Caving in on your issues is like caving in on who you are. It's not worth it.

[EstimatedProphet]

7. How about "I won't vote this election"?

[alc]

14. please vote

3rd party. write-in. leave blank. Enough people need to show up and NOT vote for an unacceptable candidate before we start getting acceptable candidates. If 5% stay home the parties don't care about those 5%. But if 5% show up and don't vote for either major party that's 5% REAL voters who they need to try to appeal to.

5% will change a lot of elections. Look at how many 51-48, 52-46 results there are? Think about that changing to 48-46 or 49-44? That's a big opportunity for a major party without needing to elect a 3rd party. Big enough that those 5% need to be listened to.

Let them know you DO vote (by showing up) but they have to earn it.

[EstimatedProphet]

17. I always vote.

[walldude]

21. The term is "crazy lefty"..

not freakin idiot.

[EstimatedProphet]

40. That's encouraging

The fact is, there's a bunch of people on DU who keep griping about how they're going to sit this one out. Like the situation or not, I frankly resent being stuck with a congress full of teabillies because they don't like their candidates as much as they want. I'm already stuck with Scott Brown as a senator for the same reason. Our side has to vote, because you can be sure their side WILL.

[Dawgs]

8. You do remember that Hillary voted for the Iraq war, right?

You shouldn't throw away any of those things to the curb.

But, you can start by blaming those that are actually against those causes. There's only one party that is not on your side.

[chimpymustgo]

16. And you can bet your last dollar, Obama would have voted for it too, had he been in the Senate.

[Dawgs]

26. Sorry. You can't make up history or make up your own facts.

We know what Hillary did.

We also know that Obama was against it at the time.

Everything else is your wishful thinking.

[Erose999]

9. All of them, didn't you get that memo from the DLC? It also has a time and location

where you need to appear for drug screening.

[Fumesucker]

11. Took the words right off my fingertips.. n/t

[county worker]

10. What does not caving look like?

I mean if you don't cave in on any of them the what are you doing about them?

[riderinthestorm]

12. K and R. May I use your list for me, and add on women's right/abortion rights

(thrown under the bus for health care reform), a real effort to invigorate Social Security to ensure it's longevity (instead of looking for ways to short-circuit it), closing Gitmo and stopping other illegal renditions, and reforming our immigration policies.

I completely get that Obama and this Admin can't do everything at once but when you look over your list, there are so many things they have taken action on - in the wrong direction! Its disheartening.

[movonne]

13. Hillary would be the same as Obama....the DLC owns them both...

I knew Hillary was but hoped Obama was not...the day he put Rahm in I started having my doubts...

[Ozymanithrax]

15. Don't hold you emotions in. It is bad for your heat.

I think those are all your opinions and policy ideas are worthy of being championed.

What exactly is it that your anger is pushing you to do?

What act does your angry lefty side want to espouse that you feel is being held in check by the unangry lefty's?

[JoePhilly]

18. How to get in "my good graces"??

Not sure you should care about that ... but ok ... I will try to provide my view.

I'm one who thinks that some of the criticism of Obama (sadly too much), from "the left" (what ever that term means), in its framing and its tone, is (unfortunately) detrimental to our strategic goals of ultimately moving the country forward on many of the fronts you list. My view is that while "we fight us" like yippy dogs, the dobermans in the GOP laugh and licks their chops. And the media uses the attacks from the right and the left as a way to push those who pay little attention towards the GOP.

But having said that, most importantly, don't change any of your positions. I don't want you to do that. Hold them and argue for them. And be BOLD during primaries, and pragmatic in the general election. I'll come back to this.

I'd suggest that where we differ is on tactics, priority, and strategy. Which things to do first, and how far to go during any specific legislative cycle. That's where making progress on a list like yours gets harder.

If you look at your list, as generic statements, I agree with each. Do I care about "Unemployment", "Privacy rights", "a clean environment" ... absolutely. And same for all of the others.

But the question that divides many of us on "the left" is HOW.

HOW do we make progress in each of these areas, and over what time period.

When Obama was running, I did not expect him to reach the end point on ANY of these in his first 18 months, or even his first term ... in fact, my view was that after 2 terms, he'd be able to make at best GOOD PROGRESS on most but not all of these, and that we'd need at least another Democratic President (maybe 2 terms again) immediately after him. Maybe one after that.

And THAT view assumed that the Dems held a majority in congress. Not always a SUPER majority, but a majority. The GOP has no intent to govern beyond giving total control the to the companies that fund them.

Earlier I said, "be BOLD during primaries, and pragmatic in the general election". What I mean is that if your representatives are not as progressive as you like, go after them in the primaries. Find better candidates. But if those lose, then (sadly) I hope you hold your nose and vote for a blue dog dem over a tea bagger from the GOP. Yes, you can feel better about your principles by not voting, but your decision also impacts the country. That blue dog WILL vote for some progress from your list. Clearly not all. But they will vote FOR MORE items on that list than any GOP or Tea bagger.

[riderinthestorm]

19. This is a good answer. But....

(you knew that was coming right?)

What I don't like is that for a lot of these things, Obama isn't even "making progress" towards reaching a more Democratic position. Obama appears to be positioning himself on the right side of issues more than the left almost every time during these first two years. He simply had to hold true to Dem values; he didn't have to continue the Patriot Act. Or use the language he has in defending DOMA. He could place a moratorium on DADT firings while it wends its way through Congress. He didn't have to ramp up military efforts in Afghanistan - he could have taken a more humane, social approach instead of more guns. His position vs the teachers unions via Arne is absolutely confrontational. He never even allowed single player at the table and took drug price negotiations out of discussions via secret meetings - obvious pandering to big pharma and big health care insurance companies imho.

Etc. etc.

It doesn't help that his advisors like Rahm Emmanual are openly hostile to the left, his spokesperson even characterizes us as "the professional left". To be portrayed as the "angry" left is unfair. We haven't "left" Obama, it feels as though he's purposefully leaving us with his actions and since he doesn't slap down his advisors who criticize us when we "boldly argue for" the left's positions, it becomes obvious how much value he believes we bring to the discussion. Zip.

[JoePhilly]

31. At least we aren't screaming at each other (yet) ....

And I'm happy to have a civil discussion on this topic .... :-)

I'd suggest that his positions are actually on the "Democratic side", and yet would also agree that they are not more to the LEFT side of the Democratic perspective.

Personally, I expected that. As a candidate he ran as a moderate who wanted to work across the aisle. Towards a future in which both sides took each other seriously, and respectfully. Which abstractly, I can agree with.

But the GOP has clearly latched on to that notion, and decided that if they can stop all movement, they win. And that is the real issue. I am for all sides being heard, but the GOP will not allow that. So, any effort from Obama and the dems is hamstrung from the start.

So let's take the the patriot act .... it was an act of Congress, so he can't just over turn it. When it passed, I told my right wing friends that a Dem President would not work to repeal it. That ax swings in both directions. If Bush can hold such powers, Obama can too. And given what the GOP is trying to do to Obama, he might be smart in allowing those powers to linger for a while.

The US government enacted DOMA, and so it is not unusual for the DOJ, a non-partisan branch of the executive branch, to argue for existing positions (much like a public defender argues for a person who they know is guilty ... even the government gets a defense). My understanding is that their "defense" is lack-luster. They'd like it to be over turned in a normal process so that it can't "come back" in some new form.

As for DADT, this could go either way ... some argue that he should go the executive order path, others argue that if he does so, he lets Congress off the hook from a permanently repeal. I won't be surprised if he goes the executive order route if the Dems lose the majority. If the dems hold the majority, I expect DADT to be over some time next year.

As for Afghanistan, as a candidate, he said he would INCREASE focus AND troops there, and he has. We can disagree about whether that is best, but this is what he ran on. He is delivering on Iraq ... so let's given him the rest of his term to deliver on Afghanistan.

As for teachers unions ... that is another tough space ... the value of teachers unions is very inconsistent from state to state. Abstractly, teachers unions are good, but as you go from state to state, you find serious issues. My in-laws are teachers, and they hate the NC teachers union structure. And I hear similar things from my family in PA. That's not an indictment of teacher's unions, but simply put forward as a reason that many do not hold an all or nothing view of "teachers unions".

As for single payer. I do not think it ever had a chance to pass the Senate, even when Kennedy was alive. The blue dogs were never going to allow it to happen.

I understand the "openly hostile" to a degree, but I don't think Gibbs characterized "us" as the "professional left" ... my sense was that he was referring to Huffpo, some on MSNBC, etc ... folks who's rating go UP if there is controversy. Those that make money regardless of who is in power just so long as the "fight" goes on.

As I said in my prior post, the debate is not so much on direction, but on tactics, timing, and priority. And given that, I also know that the GOP's intent does not consider the tactical and strategic considerations, I describe. They want to move in the EXACT OPPOSITE direction on every one of these topics.

Forget a discussion of what a more effective Teacher's Union might be ... they would abolish it.
Social Security ... gone.
Medicare ... gone.
Religious freedom ... gone.
Financial regulations ... gone.
Health-care regulations ... gone.
Unemployment for those out of work ... gone.
Tax cuts for the super rich ... extended.
Wars in the wrong place ... EXPANDED.
Funding for teachers ... cut.
Funding for infrastructure ... cut.

My point is that while we on the left (moderate, left, uber-left) go forward, and debate each other on tactics, strategy, and priorities ... we simply can not lose focus on who OUR true enemy is.

They met in DC this past week-end.

[Barack2theFuture]

20. You should abandon all of them that might be construed by any right winger

as "liberal" or "out of the mainstream."

You should also abandon all of them that might possibly be interpreted--or even *misinterpreted*--as even mild criticism of any incumbent politician with a (D) beside her or his name.

It's all right there in the "Rules for Angry Leftists."

[walldude]

22. There's rules???

Damn it I am always behind on everything. I hope I'm following them all... :)

[Barack2theFuture]

25. Don't worry. If you break a rule,

someone will let you know.

[Ignis]

42. Oh, I think more than one person will.

Well, more than one account, anyway.

[JamesA1102]

23. Please get over yourself nt

[Radical Activist]

24. You should stay angry about all of those things.

Obama has made progress in each on each of those issues and we should keep pushing for more.

[McCamy Taylor]

28. All are too important to give up. You can not compromise on human dignity.

The left needs to be angry. Anger is its greatest strength. Much better than apathy. I think we need to get back to street protests. Make ourselves heard.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. Clinton is no different.

We ended up with a choice between two center-right candidates. Don't kid yourself that Clinton would have been a better choice.

[bobbolink]

34. It would be really nice if you would include poverty and homelessness. We're invisible anyway.

Oh, that's right....

We're already kicked to the curb!

Then run over by the bus!

Bye, bye homeless people.. Hasta lumbago!

[Stinky The Clown]

35. To be fair . . . .

. . . . you can have all of those, but in moderation. As but one example, you can have some gay rights, you can even have civil unions. Not now, mind you, but someday, when the time is right.

But no marriage. You can't have gay marriage.


On edit, this is an amazing thread with some amazingly bizarre replies. Hillary? Where the fuck does THAT come from? And all the encouragement and common ground and understanding replies.

All that's missing is an outright "fuck you." And if the rules allowed for it, you'd have more than a few of those, too.

[scheming daemons]

36. Honestly? Don't cave on any of them....

You believe what you believe.

Nobody's asking you to change what you believe in.


What we're saying is... quit knee-capping the President. All you do is give aid and comfort to those that believe in your positions even LESS.


Helping the GOP doesn't move you closer to your goals.


And every time you beat up this President in a public forum, you help the GOP.



Constructive criticism is good. The outright hostile bashing is counterproductive to your goals.

[XemaSab]

37. It's symptomatic of how right wing the framing in this country has become

that I was all like "Well, it's not really PC to call them illegals, and I don't see how calling them that is something any real leftist would do." :P

[JoeyT]

41. Looks like all of them.

And if you've got any funny ideas about civil liberties or the constitution, you can forget about those too.

Questioning helps Republicans somehow, and you're either with us or against us. Or so we're told.

[Ignis]

43. K&R, and it appears you have your answer upthread:

You're allowed to hold Lefty positions on policy, as long as you never, ever, ever criticize the performance of President Obama in working towards those goals.

In other words, all you need to be both a Leftist and a "Good DUer" is to juggle five chainsaws while walking a tightrope over an alligator pit.

Easy peasy! ;)