Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

nashville_brook

(20,958 posts)
Sun Aug 2, 2015, 10:02 AM Aug 2015

The False Mirror: If my candidate doesn’t win, we’ll lose the Presidential election



The False Mirror: If my candidate doesn’t win, we’ll lose the Presidential election

https://thefloridasqueeze.wordpress.com/?p=12796&preview=true

According to Jean Piaget, all children go through a phase of egocentrism, when their developing brains don’t yet differentiate the child from the rest of the world, and other people. For example, a child might give his mother a toy dump truck for her birthday, thinking that’s exactly what she’d want. Because that’s exactly what he’d want.

Egocentrism fuels political rhetoric. In a way, it has to. A candidate has to believe her way is the best way, and go forth to sell that version of reality. After all, it’s a founding principle of our Democracy that “out of many, one” — E Pluribus Unum.

But when the urge to unite is forged of narrow interests, it’s no longer an ideal. Instead, it’s a bent version of E Pluribus Unum, where differences are masked, and interests are ignored. The “many” are told to sit down and let “the one” speak for us.

It’s easy to tell the two apart. One feels like bullying, and the other feels like participation. One invites the many to participate in Democracy, and the other sees participation as a threat.

A few months ago, when Alan Grayson was hinting at a run for the Senate, a low-level party operative argued here that if he were to do so, it would result in Democrats losing the Presidential election. The egocentricity of “if my candidate doesn’t win, everyone loses,” is obvious, but I’ll go ahead and spell it out: in a presidential election year, ballot voting is almost always straight-ticket. It’s an extraordinary claim, backed up by zero evidence, that a down-ballot candidate would have the reverse effect on the top of the ticket.

Recently on WMFE’s Intersection, political commentator, Dick Batchelor made the same extraordinary claim: “if Grayson is the nominee, he could hurt Hillary Clinton in the Presidential race.” Instead of welcoming voices into the Democratic space (out of many, one), this message is “beat it kid — you’re trashing up the joint with your message of economic equality.” It’s this kind of bullying that made Grayson dig in. It also reveals entitlement by assuming that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. That may well be the case, but there’s plenty of good Democrats in Florida who are interested in the other Presidential candidates. Is it really necessary to alienate them so early in the race? What should be of concern to the Clinton campaign, is if she can win back the progressive populists flocking to the Bernie Sanders message, should she win the primary.

(snip)

In political campaigns it’s completely understandable that the world would seem to revolve around your candidate. But in terms of organizational structure, egocentrism — forcing an inversion of “out of many, one” — drains the life out of the party. The rank-and-file come to us to be part of something, not to be told who they can vote for.

Primaries are our means of keeping the faith with the rank and file. Embracing a true primary process shows respect to the voters and to Democracy itself.


see the rest here --> https://thefloridasqueeze.wordpress.com/?p=12796&preview=true
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The False Mirror: If my candidate doesn’t win, we’ll lose the Presidential election (Original Post) nashville_brook Aug 2015 OP
+++ Part of the false "pragmatism" rationale, too. DirkGently Aug 2015 #1
naturally we're seeing this from the HRC camp right now nashville_brook Aug 2015 #2
The money bubble is not unlike the conservative bubble. DirkGently Aug 2015 #3
funny, i've heard about the "money bubble" in many contexts today nashville_brook Aug 2015 #4

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
1. +++ Part of the false "pragmatism" rationale, too.
Sun Aug 2, 2015, 10:29 AM
Aug 2015

As conservatives continue to flee the increasingly bizarre and incoherent Republican Party, we're seeing more and more of their money-centric, Powers That Be logic in our own. So not only do some people convince themselves Democrats are doomed without whichever candidate(s) they favor, but there is a persistent theme that the "right" ones are those who are most acceptable to the same large donors and predictable business interests that traditionally support Republicans.

In other words, if the Chamber of Commerce isn't with you, you "can't" succeed.

Ha. Ha. Ha.

nashville_brook

(20,958 posts)
2. naturally we're seeing this from the HRC camp right now
Sun Aug 2, 2015, 11:16 AM
Aug 2015

i can't imagine an equal and opposite message from the Sanders camp. it's an attack from the standpoint of privilege.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
3. The money bubble is not unlike the conservative bubble.
Sun Aug 2, 2015, 12:18 PM
Aug 2015

And of course they overlap. We need a bubble Venn diagram here, stat.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The False Mirror: If my c...