You're scaring away the centrists.

I thought they were the party crashers that won't go home?

That tends to spook them.

I like that!! They get all up in arms when we talk about human rights, equality, and non-war solutions too. Oh, and taxing the plutocrats

Don't forget the whistle blowers. That really gets their panties in a knot.

I had that album when I was a Kid!

with promises to fix the glaring holes in it 4) swaying, chanting Maenads tell us that The Best Law Ever Passed in Any Cosmos has already saved America $1.1 vigintillion and 515 million American lives 5) the law comes into effect

No elected official will ever pick a fight with that industry.

Practically, probably not. But that's what idealists are for, to represent the possible. It's not as if this country hasn't gotten by without the Patriot Act (battleground rhetoric) and the NDAA (Constitutional waiver) in the past.

Idealist liberals serve to represent the founders views of what is best for civilization's advancement, not just capitalism's.

Or the military's.

The people can take them down any day, if they really want to.

Bottom line, once a law passes, it is impossible during the average lifetime, to change it. And the know that which is why they went the Left to STFU and let it pass.

Why do you spread lies?

The term and usage itself I see as part and parcel of the oppositional, black-and-white, reduction to the ridiculous, and marginalizing differences of opinions into what used to pass for dialogue, political banter and discussion. It's kind of how the TEA Party took over the Republicans...machine gun, knee-jerk, for/against politics.

The terms "Derangement" and "Syndrome" (combined with the name of our first black president) infers some kind of mental deficiency. No one would say a MLK Derangement Syndrome or Jesus Derangement Syndrome just because folks might strongly disagree with some of their opinions and beliefs...it is a sign of disrespect for the name and office, regardless.

Charles Krauthammer as a convenient way for wingnuts to handwave away any criticism of the President.

Conservatives use the same devices across aisles and the Conservative Democrats that run with it are just following a well laid out meme in their tool box specifically designed to answer criticism and end debate without having to defend policies.

If the one that disagrees with the Conservative they defend "suffers" from this imaginary illness, then they are "disturbed mentally", "delusional", or possibly "unhinged conspiracy theorists" that can and should be silenced, ignored and scorned because whatever the criticism, it is obviously only the result of a "deranged" mind.

They found it very useful during the Bush years to silence criticism of Bush policies and are merely following what has been successful in the past to stifle current criticism of Centrist and often right wing policies in the present. It has been in their toolbox for over ten years so it's current use was not unexpected by people like me that have been arguing with conservatives of all stripes online since before DU was born.

Conservatives will be conservative and debate like conservatives no matter the party they wear on their sleeves.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome

an aspect of plausible deniability.
they dont need real excuses, and cannot defend their stance on a level playing field,
so its time to crazify them, Nixon style.
thats real rat f'ing.

that BDS didn't sound all that bad, given his EQ, IQ and Defender of His Daddy's Honor to get us into a war, but guess that's kind of backwards as to the meaning. I still think the using the term with Obama is inappropriate for a man of his accomplishments and stature. I want to be able to disagree ... which I do often ... and make my point without being labled, however.

It does seem an irrational term and definitely inserts a non-dialogue, non-critical discussion as used on this site as a brush off to disagreement. I do believe that the knee-jerk criticisms from all sides come off as racist dog whistle, mostly because of the vehemence and vitriol. Democrats more so to his policies or to their disappointment, but others more to his person...BC, Birthplace, white mother, the Klayman diatribe, etc.

I've learned a lot on here.

Without these idealist liberals that are outspoken and puts themselves forwards, there will be a further decline towards the right.

Without firebrands that complain to show what is wrong, many just fall to complacency.

Stating that, I somehow think that some need to at least structure themselves.
What I mean is, collect your thoughts to be able to simplify your message.

Do not just attack, without figuring out where another person is coming from.
More likely than not, their position is not that far from yours, and you can use them to further your goals.

Assemble, come up with specific goals and again, identify yourselves.
In doing so, it makes it harder to be defined by someone else or subborn your message.

Good luck idealist liberals.
I can't say I am one of you, but I can respect where you're coming from.

And we could all benefit from more civil discourse.

I'll add that anytime anyone finds themselves very emotionally attached to the point of getting upset, it might be a good idea to take a break from the message boards for a while. I left for 5 years and came back recently and found that many of the usual suspects are still posting loyally. It was interesting to see how the site has been restructured, but the infighting around here will never change ever.

Some people are born to fight against something no matter what. Its in their nature to take a defensive contrarian position to anything, while ignoring the fact that it may be like 90% in agreement with their core beliefs. You can see this type of behavior on free republic too.

Complaining about the democrats in power not being liberal enough is that they have to represent their constituents and since the press is controlled by the MIC and they have a conservative bent - Americans are more conservative now than they were when the great liberals were in power. There is a huge 'disinfotainment' industry hypnotizing the people to believe things that just aren't true.

I'd like for the democrats in office to be forwarding a more liberal agenda as much as anyone, but any serious student of history knows that it took a long time for FDR to get things going in the liberal direction.

There are a couple of facts that liberal idealists need to acknowledge: the Supreme Court leans conservative (google 'hardening of the judicial arteries') and the House of Representatives is controlled by conservatives. Our constitution intentionally balanced the power between the 3 branches and 2 (really 1-1/2) out of the 3 of them oppose the president. We have to be realistic about how much a liberal president can accomplish in an environment like that.

It is why I limit my criticism, unless asked specifically what I think.
Yes, sometimes I do criticize, but acknowledge I don't know everything.

Still, I think firebrands are useful since, even if I am not where they are at, even if I think sometimes it is unworkable given the current situation, I think it keeps me somewhat honest.

Which is why I mentioned the plea of "don't just attack, without figuring out where the person is coming from". Chances are, we agree on the end point goal, but someone like me thinks in steps on how things could work towards a particular goal. I also have to think about the repercussions of achieving a goal, the unintended consequences.

The thing I must acknowledge however, is that someone like me deliberates on many things which can paralyze action. They push forwards, and it stops me from being too accepting of the status quo.

You're right however, that the current environment is very limiting, though I guess even I must admit that I wish the current President would show more gusto towards fighting for a more progressive agenda(although I do not think him liberal at all).

All momentum will be lost.

This is why I feel like we need to be careful of the criticism that we try to place at the president's feet.

He can't forward an extremely liberal agenda before 2014 because there are still enough swing voters in this country that can be swayed by negative ads at the last minute. As a result - we end up with a watered down liberal administration trying to prevent losing any momentum (we had a little momentum from the ACA and Dodd-Frank). It took a long time to get things going in this direction and we don't have the benefit of the American people blaming the recession on republicans (FDR had that) so things are swinging very slowly.

I think we have to be patient, but if democrats criticizing the president causes us to lose seats in either the house or senate - I think it's a bad idea. Obviously, disagreement is healthy, but out and out bad mouthing - I believe that's damaging to our cause.

I am not really criticizing him much at the moment.
I understand that what he can accomplish is limited.

However, I do not see him forwarding a liberal agenda. I just don't see it.
If he does, I'd be surprised.

I also agree that out and out bad mouthing is not conducive to progress, since sometimes, all it does is entrenches people on their position.

To tell the truth, I am a wee bit concerned about people talking about 2016 already. 2014 is a far more important election at this time. Still, since I live in MD, it doesn't affect me much since I am at a very Blue State.

So, I donate to VA.

All of the focus needs to be on 2014. I'm in Arkansas and the state legislature spends all of its time trying to limit reproductive rights. Its a waste of time. I often wonder if they even care about the agenda, or if they are just there making certain nothing productive happens (pun not intentional).

Just like the US House - 41 votes to repeal Obamacare: a program that came out of a right wing think tank. It isn't that they're actually trying to accomplish anything - they're making sure nothing gets accomplished.

I don't know that we necessarily disagree. It isn't that he couldn't be doing a better job as much as he isn't able to do the job that I'd like to see him doing. I just think we have to be realistic about what to expect in the current political climate.

Support the TPP? Not going to happen, I suggest reading through this corporate takeover attempt.

Blind allegiance is never ever a good thing, it's like what Britney Spears said about Dubya.

The negotiators aren't talking.

Ideologue, simply uncompromising and dogmatic.

the difference between democrats and republicans is that democrats can disagree and not have to toe the crazy line.

Last edited Tue Sep 24, 2013, 06:08 PM - Edit history (1)

First, liberal idealism stretches the parameters of political and moral vision.

Second, it validates one group's aspirations within the larger partisan or national governing platform.

Third, there's much to be said for ongoing reminders to those who 'win' deals, that other, better efforts can also be envisioned and fought for, in the interest of the greatest good for the greatest number.

Fourth, reminding the larger American and human community of ideals is what we do. It has inherent validity.

Overall, I don't see people here being all that obnoxious about the president, really. Maybe I'm naive, but I trust the good intentions of all critics of the president here, because I believe they mean well, and because troll hunters here do an excellent job.

Let me ask others: what good does asking liberal idealists to quiet down do? The president told everyone, everyone -- not just liberals -- to hold his feet to the fire. I'm upset with many of his decisions but know that we're better off now than had the other guys won.

Since this is DU, I will add the disclaimer that I do not take this as a license to slur or hate the man. Just the feet and fire thing.

by candidate Obama.

RL

O shouldn't say shit like that unless he means it.

he can't say "make me" and then when we try to do that,
start whining about it and playing the victim.

but his followers seem to be.



RL

Oh wait ...

That's more than enough.

There is never enough Third-Way Manny to go around.

He will get a big head.

He will have to get all those ideas out of his head and that means more posts, more adulation. There really isn't a down side to it.

We do, however, have moderate manny in his stead.

hope you don't get alerted on this, but excellent reply.

-p

That's what I read into it. Am I mistaken?

remember that he is smarter than all of us!

Maybe you could ask Rahm or Obama what good it does to throw the left under the bus. Obama did it on FOX news.



-p

knows that. What he's done can only be done to leftist idealists if they let him. But they don't. They keep fussing, as is their right.

What he's done is just politics. They know that, too.

but if that's his politics then it's disgusting. I would vote for a Democrat like Warren any day over Obama, or even go native and vote for Bernie Sanders. Obama has done to many things that don't align with this liberal. A fucking kill list? Way to set precedence MR. O

-p

Read up a little bit. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31925.htm

As you can see, he didn't invent killing lists.

It's easy to say NOW that we'd choose Warren or Sanders -- hell, I'm totally with you there -- but they came AFTER Obama's grueling and humiliating fight to be the leader of the most powerful country on the planet. Notice how Sanders didn't step up for the job, friend.

This president's job is totally different from theirs, as he well learned when he moved from their level of high ground moralism to oversee the largest military on the planet. How luxurious and safe we feel as we judge those who do our dirty work.

Not just Sanders, friend.

The president got it because he wanted it and we trusted in him to do the dirty work and turn the ship around. I didn't expect him to do the *dirty* work, of which I can live without.

and no I do not feel "luxurious and safe we feel as we judge those who do our dirty work" because I don't have work. Which is why I voted for him, he's done quite the opposite. 2 FTA's and the TPP coming up next. We don't need anymore of that *dirty* work, friend.

I've actually been struggling since the Bush administration trying to take care of a family, I absolutley do not feel "luxurious and safe".

-p

when we really don't have the weight and complexity of his position on our shoulders, either. Warren and Sanders know that.

Obama didn't develop the TPP after he got sworn into the job, either, so your throwing that in for good measure doesn't change my point. Just imagine what this country would be like if either of his opponents had won.

Feel free to slap me around with 'friend' all you want. I myself didn't use it in sarcasm.

That is so old and worn out.

As I've said in previous posts, what is with this meme/notion/assumption that just because I criticize this president that I will auto magically vote Republican or not vote at all. It's ridiculous. If the obvious can't be seen by normal people, then we've got bigger problems.

-p

Sounds like prop-a-ganda. Sounds like STFU. And the justification for kill lists??
"How luxurious and safe we feel as we judge those who do our dirty work"
has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen all week. Says much more about you than anyone else here.
Luxurious and safe?? Hahahahahahaha, oh Drones killing innocent people, how safe, how luxurious. Lies, lies, lies, how safe and luxurious. I don't know anyone who has the luxury of safety, or feeling safe and most of that has to do with policies that O supports. I give him some credit for not involving us in yet another war, but public support is so adamantly against it I don't think Romney could have pulled it off. If you actually think that our govt is just keeping us safe, I have some swamp land to sell.

those sweeping, unfair claims, too. Sorry to both phlem and you for the "luxurious and safe" phrase; it was a bit over the top, ambivalently meant more as a philosophical outlook than as a personal attack -- even if all of phlem's attacks were unfounded. I do stand behind everything else, though. Feel free to take one sentence out of thousands I've posted to decide who or what I am because you want to. That also says a lot about you, yourself.

I don't think that drones keep us safe, but stopping them will take more than putting their use solely on Obama's shoulders. Because huge numbers of Americans do say that they feel safer because of whatever our military does. Also becaue we're not the only public that the commander-in-chief deals with or listens to.

Sovereign rule comes down to "might makes right." No public morality has changed that bottom line behavior of leaders for thousands of years -- only by civil war or other leaders' force -- no matter how disgusting it appears. I don't like it myself, or endorse it, but it's a reality that I as an idealist liberal have had to face.

We're not a defeated civilian command, but we have lost a lot of control over the military, and it's a circumstance that I don't think is solely Obama's doing. How to regain it is a project that goes beyond this one president.

The Yuengling Brewing Co. on you!

K&R

to put me on their mailing list!

shame! SHAME!

Society moves in steps. Not leaps.

Thanks to St. Reagan and pressure from Republicans, society stepped to the right. Repeatedly. Very far to the right.

It's now stepping back to the left. And we should continue to encourage that movement.

But it's like training a dog - you have to praise as well as pressure. You can't just yell and scream because the dog isn't doing exactly what you want the moment you want it.

And that's where the complaints about "idealist liberals" come from. There's tons of people who say things like "We didn't get single payer, so I'm never voting for a Democrat again". Or "Obama's just like W because he's threatening Syria" - despite the difference between threats and invasion. The "No difference between Republicans and Democrats" people.

That is what is frustrating. Because those "idealist liberals" stop helping to move society to the left. And without their help, it is harder to keep pulling society left. They are sabotaging their own stated goal and complaining about not reaching it.

We should be saying "good work" for the progress we do make, and keep pulling where we have not made sufficient progress. And yes, "idealist liberals" should do both - praise and pressure.

It's not in the character of "long game" liberal idealists to throw in the towel with "nevers" or "no difference" bullshit. Those people are fair weather moderates, that's all they are.

One only has to spend a little time in GD to find all sorts of people claiming the Republicans and Democrats are identical because (insert pet issue here) was not resolved precisely the way they want.

moderates. Let's get the long game character of liberal idealists understood once and for all here.

Some understand the long game. Others don't. Both are here.

Revolutionary.

Let's take some literal revolutions:

The French Revolution. It actually started several decades earlier with protests and a failed revolution (It's the one documented in "Les Miserables&quot . Society was taking steps, and it took awhile for change to really happen.

Same with the US revolution - the actual revolution was the culmination of a long series of steps, not the first steps.

Communist revolutions in countries like Russia and China? Same thing.

We teach these as events suddenly appearing, because that's a lot easier and shorter than showing the slow trend that lead to these events.

I agree with you 100%.

...I wonder if the OP is being sarcastic!

Especially with the MLK pic... did MLK sit around and wait for LBJ to "make it all happen for" him?

and yet another "lone assassin" took him out, with absolutely no connection to LBJ.
none. really. just coincidence, not a conspiracy.

I'm sure we'll all be doing mea culpas for at least the next wee or two.

Gee, which sector invented terms like "leftbagger"? Our old friend the "pony" meme? I didn't know it was rude to advocate for higher taxes on the wealthy, higher minimum wages, fewer wars, more equality, and other things that are good for humans.

We all know that crazy lefties pushing on national politics always backfires.

Maybe this time we'll get this resolved once and for all. A lasting peace between the "haters" and the "cheerleaders". Peace at last in DU land. Where ideas are debated on their merits.

to stop pressuring my President to do the right thing. Why should I settle for moderate Republican policy?

than there ever was over the SCOTUS decision on pre-clearance in the Voting Right Act, or even what was being done to the NLRB, to name just a couple of real and seruous occurring issues The VRA issue and NLRB are things that are right here, right now tangible and happening. Whether or not we go to war or not was nothing more than emotional discussion; and all the while our rights were actually being taken away.

When the far left starts giving these things more than just a shoulder shrug, I'll start taking them seriously. Meanwhile, the rest of us are in the fight for these things.

Please don't go all victim thinking this is bashing the far left. And don't start proselytizing about how the far left eternally has the moral high ground because they get it and everyone else does not. All that is very old now.

but i think it's a mistake to assume those who claim to be the left are the left for the reasons the poster gave.

there is a reason why there were more threads comparing snowden to MLK than there were on the voting rights issues.

and we expect Dems to fight them on it. And we DON'T expect Dems to start more wars. Is this really that confusing?

So you leave it to someone else because its not that important to you? That's the problem.

f*** all the nitwits

historical vacuum...they chose a literal, historical act of what was likely at the time in Boston, to be treason to the status quo/Brits. These were not of the "chattering classes"...then or now. Even today, the old style Republican Party quakes in their sights.

If anything, we proud Leftist Liberals should rename ourselves to something equally historical and confronting. I resent the "idealist" put down. These are not Ideals and we are not Swooning Idealists. Idealism is a misplaced excuse and/or suggestion for the term Utopia.

A mere lack of poor children and families going hungry is not Utopia. Utopia would be a hot, steaming, nutritious plate of high-quality food available whenever needed.

Preventing sinking labor unions and shoring up unrestrained under-employment is not Utopia. Utopia would be a strong union, laws on pay equality, a safe job for all who would work and wages that would support a family.

Corporate Executive pay over 200 times greater than worker pay is not Utopia. See above.

I could go on...these are not vague, pie-in-the-sky, touchy feely Ideals. They are basic human rights and that's what we fight for. And the louder the better.

We need a few Mother Joneses. I hope someone will post her photo...it belongs along side Martin Luther King.

"I would fight God Almighty Himself if He didn't play square with me."

"I'm not a humanitarian. I'm a hell-raiser."


Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mary_harris_jones.html#9cA8fOUky1HjOCY6.99

It's a shame that DU is so divided. I kind of get it on domestic issues (at least I think I do). But when Obama is portrayed as a war monger and a PNACer I have to wonder. He seems like one of the most reluctant war mongers in my lifetime.

I say this as an outsider looking in. I'm a Social Democrat who voted Labour in the last election (Norwegian election).

Sorry for barging in like this, as an outsider.

the authoritarians on this site any longer.

Since it seems they alone are the reason for their own downfall.

and authoritarians try to keep everyone divided.

nt

Just lemme know.

about the needy hard working poor people and the striving.

However, if centrists care as much as liberals, why would help for the needy and poor be higher if liberal ideas are implemented versus centrist ones?

striving, either. They provide creative solutions, not profitable or expedient ones.

Maybe others need to recognize THEIR importance.