Comments on: Response to Goldy’s “Progressives Need To Get Real” http://www.desiringmachine.org/blog/2006/03/21/response-to-goldies-progressives-need-to-get-real/ Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:02:02 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Jimmy http://www.desiringmachine.org/blog/2006/03/21/response-to-goldies-progressives-need-to-get-real/comment-page-1/#comment-19 Jimmy Wed, 22 Mar 2006 05:15:41 +0000 http://www.desiringmachine.org/blog/?p=10#comment-19 I would add that while strategy and picking your fights carefully may inflame some, it would be good food for thought for some progressives to understand why that tactic is necessary. This is a battle of idealism that charades as facts and truth within the Republican Party, and the swing votes they are pushing towards, that cannot be combated through reason alone. I often feel like we are in a society that has given itself to a party because the problems are too complex to understand they rely only on faith. Be that faith in God, leadership, or the hope that things will somehow turn out for the best. The issues are so large many people don't either have the capacity, or time, to comprehend. It simply has gotten complicated enough to tune out. That is not the case with most Progressives. In stark contrast to their counterparts, they have opinions beyond the simple talking points that so many others have simply put faith in. Unfortunately, strategy is the game. Progressives need to learn that we are not playing by only our rules. In fact, on the national level at least, we are playing by a set of rules that are almost alien to most progressives. But the Judas is in the opposition, not in our leadership. Unless that can be clearly identified and exposed, dissent in the rank and file republican (and swing voter) that supposedly represents the ‘mainstream voter” won’t be reversed or at least exposed for what it really is. Where is the Judas? Usually right in front of the “true believer”, but it is not Maria Cantwell. I would add that while strategy and picking your fights carefully may inflame some, it would be good food for thought for some progressives to understand why that tactic is necessary. This is a battle of idealism that charades as facts and truth within the Republican Party, and the swing votes they are pushing towards, that cannot be combated through reason alone. I often feel like we are in a society that has given itself to a party because the problems are too complex to understand they rely only on faith. Be that faith in God, leadership, or the hope that things will somehow turn out for the best. The issues are so large many people don’t either have the capacity, or time, to comprehend. It simply has gotten complicated enough to tune out. That is not the case with most Progressives. In stark contrast to their counterparts, they have opinions beyond the simple talking points that so many others have simply put faith in.

Unfortunately, strategy is the game. Progressives need to learn that we are not playing by only our rules. In fact, on the national level at least, we are playing by a set of rules that are almost alien to most progressives. But the Judas is in the opposition, not in our leadership. Unless that can be clearly identified and exposed, dissent in the rank and file republican (and swing voter) that supposedly represents the ‘mainstream voter” won’t be reversed or at least exposed for what it really is.

Where is the Judas? Usually right in front of the “true believer”, but it is not Maria Cantwell.

]]> By: Gordon http://www.desiringmachine.org/blog/2006/03/21/response-to-goldies-progressives-need-to-get-real/comment-page-1/#comment-18 Gordon Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:34:31 +0000 http://www.desiringmachine.org/blog/?p=10#comment-18 Thanks for the reply Goldy. I am truly sympathetic to your point of view and the urgency of the matter. I feel the same way about Cantwell and will vote for her in the fall. I felt that way about Kerry in 2004. In fact I was a fan of Kerry long before Iowa and long before the Howard Dean phenomenon. I guess it boils down to a question of <i>when</i> it is appropriate to have these discussions of conscience. My only point is that it is healthy to have these kinds of debate. We were kind of denied a meaningful debate going into Iraq and I think a lot of self identified progressives are really torn up about the war and so the questions of conscience weighs very heavy in their hearts. And many will ask if not now? When? When is it ok to hold our politicians accountable for the war? I concede your point that the nomination process is over and time to focus on Cantwell winning. I guess the real answer is for people to show up at the primaries and act on their concience then. But then there is another part of me that feels the notion of a candidate's inevitabilty rings hollow with a lot folks, especially those not as actively involved in politics. And any suggestion otherwise kind smacks of an imposition on one's right to exercise his or her vote. With all the people actively discouraged about politics, a real benefit is to be gain by speaking to this silent, disouraged constituency. Cantwell would do well to actively reach out to this constituency in real and meaningful ways. Also in my mind, acting or voting one's conscience is rarely a luxury. Many cases in history where people have been beaten, ridiculed, tortured, or even lost their job or life while acting on matters of conscience. But I will readily admit this fall is probably not one of those moments. Go Dems in 06! Thanks for the reply Goldy. I am truly sympathetic to your point of view and the urgency of the matter. I feel the same way about Cantwell and will vote for her in the fall. I felt that way about Kerry in 2004. In fact I was a fan of Kerry long before Iowa and long before the Howard Dean phenomenon. I guess it boils down to a question of when it is appropriate to have these discussions of conscience. My only point is that it is healthy to have these kinds of debate. We were kind of denied a meaningful debate going into Iraq and I think a lot of self identified progressives are really torn up about the war and so the questions of conscience weighs very heavy in their hearts. And many will ask if not now? When? When is it ok to hold our politicians accountable for the war?

I concede your point that the nomination process is over and time to focus on Cantwell winning. I guess the real answer is for people to show up at the primaries and act on their concience then. But then there is another part of me that feels the notion of a candidate’s inevitabilty rings hollow with a lot folks, especially those not as actively involved in politics. And any suggestion otherwise kind smacks of an imposition on one’s right to exercise his or her vote. With all the people actively discouraged about politics, a real benefit is to be gain by speaking to this silent, disouraged constituency. Cantwell would do well to actively reach out to this constituency in real and meaningful ways.

Also in my mind, acting or voting one’s conscience is rarely a luxury. Many cases in history where people have been beaten, ridiculed, tortured, or even lost their job or life while acting on matters of conscience. But I will readily admit this fall is probably not one of those moments.

Go Dems in 06!

]]> By: Goldy http://www.desiringmachine.org/blog/2006/03/21/response-to-goldies-progressives-need-to-get-real/comment-page-1/#comment-17 Goldy Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:36:46 +0000 http://www.desiringmachine.org/blog/?p=10#comment-17 Hi Gordon... great to see you blogging. My larger point is that the reality is, our choice this November is between Cantwell and McGavick, and nobody else has a snowball's chance of winning. Personally, I choose Cantwell, however much she may have disappointed me on a handful of votes. I believe that the stakes right now are really too high for us on the left to have the luxury of voting our conscience. Life is full of choices... full of compromises, and no doubt Cantwell is a compromise for many Democrats. But then, so are most candidates. What we need to do is win back control of one or two houses, so that Congress can once again be a check and balance on the White House. That should be our overriding goal. And when I say seize power, I say it with the understanding that seizing, holding, and exercising power is the only way to enact our progressive policies. Hi Gordon… great to see you blogging.

My larger point is that the reality is, our choice this November is between Cantwell and McGavick, and nobody else has a snowball’s chance of winning. Personally, I choose Cantwell, however much she may have disappointed me on a handful of votes.

I believe that the stakes right now are really too high for us on the left to have the luxury of voting our conscience. Life is full of choices… full of compromises, and no doubt Cantwell is a compromise for many Democrats. But then, so are most candidates.

What we need to do is win back control of one or two houses, so that Congress can once again be a check and balance on the White House. That should be our overriding goal.

And when I say seize power, I say it with the understanding that seizing, holding, and exercising power is the only way to enact our progressive policies.

]]>