Of Whole Cloth - Democratic Underground

NanceGreggs

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Nov-07-10 10:03 PM
Original message

Of Whole Cloth

Edited on Sun Nov-07-10 10:07 PM by NanceGreggs

During the eight disastrous years of the BushCo Administration, the constant buzz among Democrats – especially those on DU – was the fact that Republicans stuck together and supported their own, no matter what.

This kind of support was dismissed as zombie-like lock-stepping, never to be confused with, nor equated to, the independent thinking among those under the Big Tent, who consistently defied the notion that people with common goals were incapable of achieving them without demanding like-mindedness among their ranks, devoid of individual opinions and/or the acknowledgement of separate-but-equal principles.

The Big Tent included a vast array of Democrats: centrists, middle-of-the-roaders; conservative-prone moderates and far-left extremists. And all were welcome, because that was our strength. We, as a Party, recognized that it was the tapestry of interwoven threads of myriad origin that made for better cloth, more enduring than the fabric crafted of one fiber, to the exclusion of all others deemed unacceptable by those who manned the political looms.

Where we have failed, IMHO, is in the recent admonitions to be less-than-inclusive of our own when they voice opinions that fall outside the accepted voice that MUST be deferred to – a.k.a. the loudest among us – something we have recognized as a major fault in our opposition, but somehow ultimately failed to see as detrimental when we adopted it as part of our own behaviour.

It is no surprise to the more astute here that demands to toe the line by self-proclaimed progressives, extreme liberals, far leftists have been divisive within our party, and the self-appointed spokespeople for the aforementioned have driven a wedge between the many groups that truly are, collectively, “the base” – that base so many claim to have exclusive rights to, as though no one of differing political stance has a right to be acknowledged for their efforts to achieve the goals common to us all.

It is somewhat ironic that the Big Tent – once representative of our proud heritage of honouring diversity and individual thought – has been gleefully rent asunder by those who, despite their claims of liberal-minded tolerance, have absolutely no tolerance for those who disagree with their own view of the world and how it can be made better for all.

There are some whose intolerance is the result of feeling marginalized by the greater numbers who are more pragmatic in their attitudes; those who have grown understandably impatient with fellow party members who seem reluctant to move ahead at a pace not necessarily acceptable to the nation-at-large.

But there are also those whose intolerance of any political stances taken, other than their own, is simply a matter of having it their way or no way – the consequences of such an attitude be damned. They have no empathy for those irreparably harmed by their attitude, nor sympathy for those whose lives are adversely affected by their insistence on all or nothing, their way or the highway, or the prospect of being judged as unworthy of being part of the collective “we” should opinions be expressed that are not in keeping with the loudmouth-de-jour on a political website.

Our Big-Tent strength is now being proferred as our biggest weakness – no room for centrists, conservative Democrats, pragmatists, incrementalists – or whatever other label certain people wish to apply to those whose world view is different from their own, whose approach to achieving commonly-held goals varies in any way from the lockstep demands – yes, lockstep – of those who “know” the only true path to political success.

The threads of our Party’s tapestry are many, each contributing their own luster and strength to the whole – the polished experience of the silk, the common sense of the cotton, the inherent fortitude of the hemp, the delicate nuance of the linen, the reliability of the wool.

There are those among us who delight in pointing to the weaknesses of fibers they deem as easily dispensed with, those of no importance to the final product – and their outcries in doing so should be not only be weighed and measured, but scrutinized for the true purpose of their motives.

A house divided against itself cannot stand – and when alleged Democrats go about doing all in their power to divide, you can’t help but wonder what end result they are hoping to achieve – and if that end result has anything at all to do with Democratic Party success, and the possibility of Democratic Party achievement.

When someone encourages you to embrace your fellow Party members who have their sights set on goals common with your own – despite their differences in the way such goals are best realized – you might want to consider that approach.

But when someone encourages you to dismiss out-of-hand any fellow Party members whose approach differs from your own, you might be well-advised to consider their intentions, along with the true purpose of their agenda.

I am a Big Tent Democrat – if such labels are now, as it seems, necessary to be applied. I embrace the caution of the conservative Democrat, the vision of the Liberal Democrat, the soft-of-voice Democrat, the throw-caution-to-the-wind outspoken Democrat, the careful-what-you-wish-for Democrat, the sky’s-the-limit Democrat – all have their place, and their contribution to make.

And I, for one, treasure each viewpoint, and recognize its contribution to the whole – each thread in its proper place, each texture valued for its unique quality, each voice heard and given its proper place in the overall harmony, each opinion considered and added to the mix.

The dismissal of any opinion or political position that doesn’t conform to the current self-proclaimed loom-master’s view of how the Democratic cloth should look in the end result is a lockstepper encouraging locksteppers, and calling themselves anything else is as inherently dishonest as it is laughable - and ultimately dangerous in its ability to divide and conquer those who would otherwise seek to march together on what is truly common ground.