Sorry: But given the mess we have, Pragmatism trumps Principle and Partisanship

The economy is a mess, we are fighting two wars.Thew homefront has been neglected for too too long. The only good news is that Obama is getting swown in in loss than 240 hours/

Yes there are War Criminals in our midst; Yes the Bill of Rights has been eviscerated; yes the Rich got richer in the last eight years whil the middle class lost it shirt.



What Obama has going for him is the good will of the middle and about half the right side of the country. He enjoys huge approval ratings in part because of his port partisian language. He is positioned for an extended honeymoon and he needs it.

But lets be perfectly clear if we lead with partisanship, or pandering or prosecutions, instead of competance and coalitions and consensus, that support will evaporate and so will the ability to get thing through the Senate.

There is a hefty price to be paid for hyper-partisanship Nothing gets done. It may suck....but the common good is always more important than vengeance being meted out on the few. Always!

I for one, choose not let my eight years of pent up anger and indignation or even my partisan instincts blind me to the important work ahead and the need for some support from the GOP.

Enough with the crocodile tears and the faux outrage. Enough with the handwringing and second guessing. Lets support the President so he can accomnplish great things.

It's a dopey fantasy Obama got stuck in his head during the 1990s. It has nothing to do with our current problems.

Obama's ideology IS bi-partisanship and it's as foolish an ideology as supply-side, neoconism, marxism, etc..

Bipartisanship for it's own sake is both idealogical and F'ing stupid.

The pragmatic course is to do the right thing whether pugs (or Dems) like it or not. That's pragmatism... doing the best thing in the situation.

Anything has to pass or there's no point. So any measure needs 60 votes. That's prgamatism.

The desire for 80 votes, even if it changes the ultimate package from what is determined to be the very best possible plan that will get 60 votes, is demented.

:toast:

not even close. The country was united against Nixon's actions, and moving past and ignoring the nitty gritty of what his administration did allowed the worst of his cohorts to come back and damage this nation immeasurably. So did moving past the crimes of Reagan and Bush1. We SAW for the last EIGHT YEARS what happened when the thugs were let off the hook to return, why do you want us to do the DUMBEST THING any Democrat or citizen can do, yet again? That's not pragmatism, it's dereliction of duty by giving up your right as a citizen to open government that is held accountable.

:hi:

You do realize these 'talking points' can be Googled?

:eyes:

"The common good" is not served by allowing the Constitution to be trampled ~ what's served by that is the special interests of members of Congress.

by ulterior motives. Barack and company know what they are doing and they will get a good package through to start the work of rebuilding this country. I will support the president by watching legislation and contacting my congress critters if they screw up.

January 20th can't come soon enough for me! Woo Hoo!!

:woohoo:

Which is the substance of your post here, and of a lot of your other posts.

:hi:

being a lock stepper or worshiper. I'm entitled to my opinion as you are yours.

:hi:

Your paranoid, hostile accusations are way outside the bounds of decency and, coincidentally, the rules.

for words as to what others are. Again, you are entitled to your opinion. I'm sure the mods will notify me when and if I'm out of bounds on any post I make. Have a great day!

A difference of opinion does not constitute a rules violation, never has and never will.

And talk about a paranoid post. :freak:

Careful. You're treading on very thin ice. There surely are serious problems, and our new President, the first real one and the only legitimate one we've had in eight years, will certainly need our support. That said, at least where principle is concerned, the end never justifies the means. Never!

Get it yet?

We really are fucked.

Pragmatism cannot "trump" principle, however Pragmatism may require enough flexibility to overcome inertia.

If the other side insists on tossing around gasoline in our already burning house, we are compelled to restrain them. There are some who want nothing more than to watch the whole thing burn. We owe it to ourselves, and to our children not to indulge them. If this means that bipartisanship is sacrificed, then it is sacrificed, a partnership where one side does all the work and the other side disrupts and obstructs is no partnership at all.

They laid the blame squarely in Junior's lap where it belongs.

We are truly in deep shit in every possible way.

:scared:

But 'prinicple' no.


Did you mean ideology instead of 'principle'? (Not torturing prisoners is a principle).


I believe that in many, but not all cases the solution from the left is more pragmatic.


I am left of center for practical reasons not ideological ones.

If you think our outrage is faux you might want to check your pulse.

But there is no use compromising with the Thugs just for the sake of it. They are the main reason we are in the position that we are.

I don't agree we should embrace the strategy that the right had for the last 8 years, giving their president a blank check. I prefer the strategy of the civil rights, gay rights, women's right, and anti-Vietnam War movements that put enormous pressure on our leaders and ultimately prevailed. Obama has shown he's prepared to take the path of least resistance, rather than to lead this country out of the cruel and inhuman policies that started with the Ronald Reagan. We need to keep the pressure on Obama, especially since he's already demonstrated his desire to reach out to the same forces in the U.S. that have done us so much harm, including the religious right and Wall Street. Progressives need to keep the heat on Obama, rather than keep cutting him slack.

I didn't buy it then & I don't now.

Principles and ideals are not at odds with nor contradictory to pragmatism. The traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party and the Labor movement represent the most practical way to achieve objective real world results for the people.

I cannot see how any person who considers themselves to be a liberal or a Democrat could so misunderstand those principles and ideals that they would see them as oppositional to pragmatism or practicality.

"Pragmatism" is a stalking horse for conservatism. There is nothing about our principles and ideals that is not pragmatic - quite the opposite is true.

The very people demanding "post partisanship" are some of the most rigidly partisan zealots I have ever seen in politics. Granted, they are partisan to one personality rather than a party.

We can see now, however, as this debate continues that "post partisan" actually means rejecting principles and ideals. People are no longer trying to hide that, but instead are now trying to argue that yes, principles and ideals are to be forgotten and rejected, but they want to convince us that this is a good thing.

Of course, I should say that they are calling for the rejection of certain principles and ideals - the traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party and the Labor movement. Authoritarian ideas, Reaganomics trickle down ideas, and the "beliefs" promoted by the leaders of the religious right are not to be rejected, they are now to be given serious consideration.

He may turn out to be a good one; we shall see. He got more people involved in politics, and everything else being equal that is always a good thing for the political Left and the people.

I don't agree with those who are engaged in hero worship and a cult of personality, but I don't agree with those who are writing him off, either. Both are easy ways to escape our responsibility and duty. He is a politician - he is neither a saint nor the devil incarnate. All politicians are subject to being influenced and controlled by the wealthy and powerful few. All politicians are conservative, relatively speaking. They will only be as liberal as we force them to be through public pressure. That is always the case in politics.

The very fact that he is vague and a blank slate is not a bad thing, that can make for a good representative of the people. However, that can never happen if we stay passive and silent, as some are demanding that we do, and merely trust that he or any other politician is smarter than us and knows what they are doing.

Surrounding himself with insiders and conservatives is not a good sign, and I think we are right to speak out about that - for his sake as well as ours. I am also absolutely convinced that the ideas of "post partisan" and "including" the ideas of bigots and conservatives will not work and is a very bad and dangerous approach.

But if he is as brilliant and transformational as his most zealous partisans claim him to be, perhaps he is floating these right wing ideas for the express purpose of waking us up, getting us to speak out, so that public pressure and consensus can form around left wing political positions and so give him support and cover for moving that direction.

It destroys the political process when people in effect say "we love you and whatever you say or do we will support you no matter what" to politicians, and I think that is what is happening.

Nor does it make any sense to say that he "is" a conservative - of course he is - and so therefore we should oppose him at all times and on all things.

We should be skeptical and critical toward all politicians at all times. That hasn't changed with the election of Obama. What has changed is that we now have a group of people who are demanding that for this one politician at this time, we should not be critical and skeptical.

I was talking abiout knowing what fights to pick,

Picking fights on Torture/Rendition/Habeus Corpuse/War Crimes etcetera are counterproductive.

That must suck!

Let us know when you want us to go over and adopt a friend at Free Republic. An ideaological case study/work in progress buddy.

that got us into this mess, would be a partisan course that rejects working with those same Republicans.

Partisanship has allowed the Rethuglicans to dominate and completely remake the United States into a virtual banana republic. Prior to 1968, partisanship of the Democrats forged the USA into the most prosperous and powerful country ever witnessed. This insistence on a false dichotomy of partisanship is bad and comprise is good is just false and worse stupid and ineffectual.

How about the house is burning down and 60% of us want to pour every last bit of water at our disposal on it but 20% wants to know how much the water costs first and another 20% doesn't want the fire put out but anything but Holy Water from the baby Jesus. Well obviously we need to reach a consensus and appease the Holy water people because 60% of can't really force a decision right? That wouldn't be fair. I mean we should do whatever it takes, including letting a bit more of the house burn down so we don't hurt anyone's feelings. I mean, it's not like they'll blame the fire chief if he lets the house burn down while he's searching for genuine, baby Jesus Holy Water. It is detrimental to compromise with completely false assumptions.

Can you give me an example of when middle of the road, appeal to everyone, milquetoast policies have ever resulted in the greater good in any country and culture in history?

AN EXAMPLE. PLEASE.

You know what you get when you get this false, forced consensus? Failure. As in the historic failure of the Chinese to make any progression in their culture for about 1500 years because it was unacceptable to stand out or innovate in any way.

Principle should ALWAYS trump Pragmatism.

If the thing you are doing is against your principles, you probably shouldn't be doing it.