Ideological purity preferable to victory?

or, The progressive wing of the Democratic Party would rather be right than be president

Forgive the source - editorial in the Washington Times from last summer - but it makes a few good points... It is also, in it's entirity, somewhat pro Howard Dean. It does, however have a vieled warning...

(Regarding the) Democrats, the progressives' newfound assertiveness within the party and their eagerness to establish their ownership of it by nominating someone unapologetically with them both go without saying. The sources of this progressive resurgence are many. The Naderite left-wing rebellion that so bedeviled Al Gore in 2000 has come home to the party. The cautious policy agenda of Bill Clinton was acceptable as party strategy when it produced results, but not when it failed, as in 2002. And of course, there's the progressives' heartfelt sense of the illegitimacy of the Bush administration itself, falling as it does on the heels of the illegitimate GOP effort to oust Bill Clinton from office.

To this, add one more thing: The progressive wing of the Democratic Party would rather be right than be president, as the noted American non-president Henry Clay said in 1850. Not, by the way, that the party's left thinks this is necessarily the electoral outcome that will result — only that it is willing to take the risk. There is nothing the least bit crazy about this. Reshaping the Democratic Party as a resolutely progressive party is the real task at hand. It will take how long it takes.

And what about the centrist Democrats? How can they possibly be said to have an interest in a left-wing nominee? Well, put it this way: They, too, are engaged in a long-term project, namely, the creation of a Democratic Party that is moderate across a sufficiently broad range of subjects to get elected nationally and therefore to have the White House and the executive branch at the service of a (moderately) progressive agenda. If you think Mr. Bush looks pretty formidable for 2004, then you are at some level already playing for the recriminations following a Democratic loss. A Democratic nominee running far to the left and losing buttresses the centrist case going forward.

The condition of the Democratic debate this year reminds me of the condition of the Republican debate on the eve of the 1964 convention at San Francisco's Cow Palace. True, Barry Goldwater went on to lose the general election in an epic landslide. But the modern conservative movement considers his nomination its first great victory.


http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20030721-093413-2220r.htm

Of course, the question that begs to be answered is, what is ideological purity when it comes to democrats? Does a strong military record and (at least) suspect associations (Wesley Clark) mean he isn't ideologically pure? How about (at least) suspect records on social programs and environmental issues (Howard Dean). Is he ideologically pure? What IS ideological purity and is it really an issue?

Witness this story from Australia on their progressive politics: When obsolete party purity turns to ideological sludge

It is rather a pity that the Australian Labor Party, engrossed in its own squabbles, was not represented at the recent international conference of centre-left parties, from Europe to America, including Britain, South Africa and New Zealand.

Since Bill Clinton was there representing the United States Democrats, there are some in the Labor Party, still hitched to obsolete ideological wagons, who would have thought that this conference was not for them. This was the "Progressive Governance" conference.

Too bad. There is room for plenty of sensible argument about alternative approaches to social and economic policy without bothering about the kind of obsessions which preoccupy those who like to think of themselves as left, in the genre of Noam Chomsky...
(..or left in the genre of Bill Clinton...)

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/21/1058639725772.html

Have a false dichotomy day.

by framing a desire for principled positions as the emotionally-laden extreme "ideological purity;"
by carrying the automatic presumption that progressivism is a losing proposition;
by reaching all the way back to 1850 in order to paint progressives as unrealistic;
by presuming obsolescence of progressive ideas, using Australia as the example.

There are ways to bring these things up that foster a productive dialogue, but the expression "ideological purity," which is most often used around here for Green-baiting, is a reliable indicator that a productive exchange is not on the horizon.

I can still be proven wrong by discussants rising to the occasion. We'll see.

by framing a desire for principled positions as the emotionally-laden extreme "ideological purity;"

That was the title of the article

by carrying the automatic presumption that progressivism is a losing proposition;

Any indication of that is in the article as well. Quotes.

All your other "reasons?" quotes.

I asked very nicely for a dialogue. As you can see by the other responses in the thread, I have gotten a little of it.

But your reply was reactionary. You didn't like what the two pieces were saying so instead of explaining your problems with it, you reacted and attacked the messanger. Sad.

I have no feelings about you one way or the other. I also have been here long enough to get a feel for flamefests.

I am interested in proceeding from the evidence. As I said, we shall see whether the evidence supports or refutes my opinion. If you want to lay into me about how unfair my reading was, go ahead, but I don't see how that will help.

...the "flamebait" charge is very reactionary.

The first article framed the discussion in such a way as to ask how the democratic party can reconcile itself with two distinct ideologies warring for dominance.

It used the '64 Republican primaries as an example. Good analogy.

The second article showed how a similar situation in Australia - though more extreme than our current one - is playing out.

I thought it tied in well...

The posted who cried "flamebait" is giving him the appearance of being exactly what the articles allude to. That is, an ideologue who won't compromise or discuss the issue. My way or you're posting flamebait.

... maybe I'll learn in time.

really emphasizes the word "false" :eyes:

is part of the fight. While Dems want to regain the presidency, many of the activists are progressive and want to take the party to the left. Many of these folks dislike both Dean and Clark, opting for Kucinich and Kerry.

Personally, I hate being a hypocrit, so running a candidate for the Dem nomination, who may or may not be a Democrat smacks of interfence by the DLC and the "centrists".

If we become a win at the cost of any principles, how are we better than the current bunch running the country?

I remember the Goldwater campaign in '64. I think he was the forerunner of the neocons today. It took them a while to finally hijack the Republican party (with Reagan) with their fundamentalist agenda.

If further left progressive are willing to wait, then sure they can gain control of the party.

But I think it would be easier to put the efforts behind ousting Bush and getting some variance of progressives in office first.

And, as the original poster asked, what is ideological purity when it comes to the democratic party?

Is it all in the eye of the beholder?

If the Dems run Clark, knowing when he announced he was not a registered Dem, and had PRAISED the current bunch of criminals, then the claim that there is no difference between the Dems and the Pubs is legitimate. Add to that, that as a DLC "stop Dean" candidate, Clark will be taking money from big business, etc, while Dean is small donor supported, whether he talks CFR or not. The difference is obvious.

While Dems want to regain the presidency, many of the activists are progressive and want to take the party to the left. Many of these folks dislike both Dean and Clark, opting for Kucinich and Kerry.

Personally, I hate being a hypocrit, so running a candidate for the Dem nomination, who may or may not be a Democrat smacks of interfence by the DLC and the "centrists".

If we become a win at the cost of any principles, how are we better than the current bunch running the country?

In your earlier post, you frame the debate as one between "Dems (who) want to regain the presidency" vs. "the activists (who) are progressive and want to take the party to the left". This dichotomy fails to recognize the "progressive activists" (hey, what about the moderate activists?) who want to regain the presidency *AND* "want to move the party to the left". You also portray those who would like Dems to win the Presidency, as wanting to "win at the cost of any principles" as if there were no principles attached to wanting to see Bush* defeated.

In this latest post, we see that supporting Clark means that "the claim that there is no difference between the Dems and the Pubs is legitimate"

and being the bad crook himself.

Saying that Clark is no different than Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney just because he got along with them is not very convincing.

were made over two years ago. Since then, he has spoken out against the war and made strong statements against Bush. Which counts for more?

I have always been a registered Democrat, but I have voted for a few liberal Repugs in my lifetime. If Clark does not win the nomination, is my vote too tainted for Dean supporters?

Arkansas allowed people to declare a party affiliation and that fact that he once said some nice things about a few Republicans makes him a Republican even though he has declared for the Democratic nomination and he clearly supports politicies that are to the left of every other Democratic candidate except DK and Al Sharpton.

Are they really more important than ACTUAL issues such as the environment, foreign policy, the economy, health care. The sorts of things you mentioned are just kind of trivial IMO.

"he was not a registered Dem
PRAISED the current bunch of criminals
a DLC "stop Dean" candidate
Clark will be taking money from big business, etc, while Dean is small donor supported."

I think it's great that Dean is small donor supported - I LIKE that about him very much. BUT - you need to let us know what else he has going for him other than that and his "personality?"

We keep on hearing about the above things over and over again. We never get to hear from his supporters here about his programs, his record, his issues - if some supporters post these things - they get lost in the shuffle.

attitudes via the media and other methods. In order to make social change - you have to "win people over" NOT shove things down people's throats and alienate them. You can't change people that way. When people are pushed and antagonized - they tend to band together AGAINST the perceived threat.

At what point does victory become hollow because of the cost in compromised ideals? If we emulate the enemy in order to win, do we not become the enemy ourselves?

... without the obigatory "flamebait" charge.

Tsk tsk.

if we could just discuss at what point does "compromise" become a complete selling our of our principles? Wouldn't we be more rational if we weren't to limit ourselves to either principled rigidity vs. unprincipled, us vs. them?

Isn't it possible to compromise without compromising one's moral integrity?

Are we really emulating the enemy. I see no evidense of this.

As much as it pains people on the far left, mainstream Democrats and Republicans actually agree on some issue. We also disagree on some issues. People who claim that we are the same as the Republicans look only at the issues were we agree like strong defense and free trade and ignore issues where we disagree like abortion, seperation of church and state, etc.

Not only that, but the right wing parties have lost so much support, that a traditionally right wing dominated political landscape has been TOTALLY dominated by the left ever since.

In fact at the last election, the right wing parties got less votes than at any time in NZ history by a long margin, and that is truly saying something when you realise that right wing parties have been in power probably 80% of the time.

How did they achieve it and how long would you estimate it took.

Did they have an unbiased press? Was it truly apparant to the populace that the left was right (or, correct?)

We had to do it the hard way. What happened was that crypto-right wing people managed to take control of the Labour party, and began a series of "third way" like changes including deregulation, privatisation, free markets (there are now no import tarrifs, and many local industries went out of business because of it), employment relations changes (that basically killed unions) and so on.

Basically, take all the right wing dreams and enact them as the left wing party. It got so bad that even the traditional right wing party was grumbling about the pace of the changes (not that they were occuring, only that they were occuring so fast).

The end result was a massive shift back to the right wing party which won the next election. However, it was at this stage that people realised that what was happening were right wing policies because the National party (tories) carried on with the program as if nothing had changed.

This resulted in a massive grass roots, and I mean grass roots - no major political party involvment beyond trying to fight it - campaign for electoral reform to break the two party hold on the election process. In the end, a referendum was forced on the government which asked whether the electoral process should be changed from First Past the Post (one vote for the local seat - most seats wins) to Mixed Member Proportional (two votes - one for a seat and one for a party - half the Paliarment seats being filled by direct electorate votes the other half by a party's share of the so called "Party Vote")

Just to show you how bad it had gotten, the newly privatised (and foreign owned - US in fact) Telecom spent over a million dollars on an advertising campaign aimed at defeating the referendum. That shows you what kind of corporate control of the Government we had. Such a thing was unheard of before then.

Howver, the referendum was a clear success for MMP and at the next election it was in place. For the first time ever minor parties like the Greens were able to gain seats in Parliament, along with new parties created specifically for MMP.

It took us twelve years to come back from the raping of the Labour party by the crypto-rightists - which could have been avoided if Labour party people listened to the Greens (all ex-Labour) to begin with and refused to accept the crypto-right domination of Labour.

Of course, in some cases it was too late. We would love to have been able to keep our power and telecommunications industries state owned, but it was too late once we had regained control of Parliament from the corporations. We did however manage to save our hospitals and Social Welfare systems.

By the way, our largest city (Auckland) which accounts for 25% of our population, and whose business district is vital for our economic well-being suffered at the hands of a privatised power company. Their lack of maintenance, even after having been warned by experts, resulted in the city's business district suffering a blackout that lasted OVER A MONTH due to the failure of a major power cable. When the cable failed, the other two cables were unable to handle the load and also failed, resulting in the need to replace major sections before the power could be put back on.

Sound familiar? Ok it WAS longer, but the deregulation and privatisation of our power industry resulted in as big a blow to us, as the deregulation and privatisation of your industry did to the US when the power went off in the north east.

Like I have said before, there is nothing coincidental about this. One of the main crypto-rightists who took over our Labour party went on to become leader of the WTO, and another became a highly placed cosultant for the World Bank and IMF.

Trust me, it is a PLAN not a COINCIDENCE. The exact same things that happened to us nearly a decade ago are currently happening in the UK, and will soon find its way to the US. Unless you stop it.

One last point: After the referendum, the sudden fleeing of support from Labour finally woke up the power brokers within the party, and they purged the crypto-rightists - who went on to form the most right wing party in NZ politics, the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers (ACT) which is a major misnomer. It really should be the Association of Corporations and Taxdogers. They now receive less than 5% of the Party vote which shows you just how popular they really were.

The ONLY reason they ever got into power is because the Labour party LET them take control of it, and the goodwill Labour had built up in tha past was handed to them on a silver platter. Much of that goodwill is now gone, and Labour had to work really hard to get some of it back.

Some interesting materials on "social change"

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Complete/Subjects/201.html

I believe that we go through periods (of 10, 15, 20 years?) where it swings back between Right and Left. We had a lot of upheaval during the 60's and with Watergate. It swung to the left's side. The era sort of ended after Carter. THEN Reagan came along and in "swung" in the right's direction.

If we have another Watergate - it may soon be our turn again. THIS back and forth swing has been going on for a century. I learned about this in one of my Sociology classes. Nothing changes UNTIL the majority of the people change their attitudes and "swing" in a certain direction. It's sort of a "natural" progression.

are in line with progressive goals on health care, social security, the environment, the list goes on and on. So why do people insist on referring to progressives as "trying to hijack the party"? They're not, and they don't. I posit that most people are more "progressive" than they are willing to admit, and they are simply afraid of the label. The democratic party is progressive, and the "centrist" applies only to the real righties in the party (i.e. Miller and LIEberman) IMHO.

... is that the left has used that term themselves when discussing how the far right (Christian fundamentalists) took over the republican party.

In THAT instance, they started in lower offices... school boards, mayors, etc. and worked their way into the Republican ranks slowly.

about their stances...they were the infamous 'stealth candidates' -- moderate talking til the election, then the gloves come off. So that's where the 'hijack' comes from when talking about them. It can't apply in the same way to leftists because there's no similar 'false flag' stuff going on.

We certainly can all agree on certain 'core values', I believe, but I do not think we can ignore the objective realities of voter demographics.

Because of our social policies alone, we are CLEARLY differentiated from the Rethugnicrats; on the economic side is where many of us differ. We clearly differ with the Rethugnicrats on matters of foreign policy.

Differences of opinion do not constitute 'heresy', my friends.

These stories are near-meaningless on DU, except perhaps as an example of the false choice of center and center-right. This is the choice we get with a corporate-controlled media and government.

Through the Democrats, we have learned that "centrism" is devoid of ideals and, bizarrely, is even anti-populist. What 'center' are they mapping out here? What does it mean to compromise from an already compromised position, except to facilitate the Right? When total privatization and governance by private monopolies are on the horizon, is 'intolerance' of this old totalitarianism a sign of "ideological purity"?

What about creating the conditions for a political coup through corporate globalization and media consolidation-- Is that how we prove we're not 'pure' to the Washington Times?

Aren't these the interests who rely on Communist and Fascist regimes to supply cheap labor?

Have we returned to Earth yet?

”OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS NOT DISCHARGED BY AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF VIRTUOUS ENDS. OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO ACHIEVE THESE OBJECTIVES WITH SOCIAL INVENTION, WITH POLITICAL SKILL, AND EXECUTIVE VIGOR. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them."

John F. Kennedy

those who willingly fight for others to gain a loaf of bread often do not ask the hungry if half a loaf will do for the time being.

until humanity is extinct, there will always be politics. to think that any single or set of positions are the final ones flies in the face of historical facts and human understanding. there will and must be compromise in human affairs, unless one is a profound ideologue or fanatic who believes that theirs is the only acceptable stance.

these latter people are more dangerous than any ideology, because any ideology can be hijacked by those who market in absolute certainty. on the right, the italian fascists and german nazis did it; on the left soviets, maoists, and khymer rouge did it, fundamentist christians, muslim, hindi, all do it.

so, as kennedy said, virtuous announcements about wanting to get to that Promised Land is not enough. we have to use our brains to get there, and that means compromises will be necessary. but it does not mean one losses sight of the eventual goals.

And I make no apology for it.

What good is it if you "win" by becoming a holder of positions I/you/we believe to be wrong for the country. I would rather tirelessly speak out about what I believe to be right for the country even if I didn't win the first time, becaue maybe the second, third, or fourth time I would.

I haven't given up on the art of persasion. We treat elections like we have to find out what everyone wants and then conform to that so we can win. The war in Iraq was wrong. It was wrong with 90% of the public claimed they supported Bush in Iraq. It remains wrong now. Taking care of the poor, coporate reform, and a renewed and genuine commitment to multilateral global cooperation and to a cessation of support for human rights abuses around the world is right. It is right if few publically support those things. It will remain right when they do.

I think what you are confusing here is the difference between sacrificing what you know to be right in principle vs. refusing to make strategical compromises in practice and application at any point along the way in order to see things you want come to pass.

That's the differece.

Refusing to compromise or mistaking the forrest for the trees is indeed a mistake. In order to see change in society, you have to watch it unfold in agnonizingly slow ways. A small victory here, a little advance there. Sometimes you have to allow some legislation on your opponents' agenda to pass, with an attachment of something that you belive in. The fight against what's wrong and for what's right is like a war of atrition. And I think that's the problem that its sometimes identified in some idealists. But that's different than literally sacrificing what you believe to be morally right just so you can win an election. That doesn't help anyone, and it certainly doesn't help the country or the world.

Right on!

If it were true, Kucinich would be in 1st or 2nd place. Instead we have the mysterious Clark and the centrist Dem, Dean. The fact that many democrats ar not willing to slide any further to the right than Dean doesn't indicate any sort of ideological puritanism. It shows that we are sick and tired of our party being inexorably dragged further and further right, only to watch the GOP lurch even FURTHER right into the territory of fascism.

We are already the furthest right of all the advanced democracies. Any further right (and a right-leaning dem president would still signal that slide) will seriously threaten to unravel the social fabric.

great post gringo! We are as far right as most of us SHOULD be willing to go.

i.e., the continued adherence to the centrist strategy, and the insistence that moderates/centrists display of wanting absolute and unswerving adherence to centrist political dogma. this, we are told, is because americans are conservative. but as we all know, this "conservatism" isn't natural to many...it's the result of years of rw propoganda, e.g., the cultural wars on social issues.

seriously...isn't this the ideological "purity" problem that continues to make the greens attractive to some?

the persistent drumbeat about the insistence of the left on "purity" doesn't mesh with recent political realities. clinton DID co-opt some neo-con issues...the party HAS moved to the right. the DLC and New Democrats continue to 'triangulate' to capture swing voters...which HAS alienated, and is alienating some traditional democratic constiuencies.

i'd appreciate some honest discussion about this...for once.

doesn't mean that one is right over the other.

1)Your guy would be polling in the 1 percentile
2)Dennis Kucinich would have the nomination .