Why do liberals fight with each other so much? Because it works.

Our community is raucous, full of passionate dissents and disagreements because that is how change is done. That is how it has always been done. There has never been a movement in human history for meaningful change that did not have internal disagreements. Sometimes these disagreements resulted in the implosion of the movement, sometimes these disagreements propelled the movement forward. However, rapid, boiling internal dissent is a force that propels change forward.

The multi-century fight for women's rights, which is on-going across the globe, was not and is not a unified movement with a single voice. It has and has had radicals, moderates and all kinds of folks in-between who fought (and are fighting) the good fight for change. The civil rights movement in this country was not a monolithic force at all. The movement was ripped with internal dissent over what direction to take and whether or not the non-violent approach was working or working quickly enough. The oppposition to the Vietnam War was a case study in semi-organized chaos.

Why does this happen? Because the heart of liberalism or progressivism is changing what is and that is incredibly hard work. It is easier to be a conservative. That ideological force seeks to preserve what is and to preserve order in society. Human beings instinctively crave order and security. Much of liberalism challenges what is and threatens real change. Actual, honest-to-god, real change is hugely upsetting to most people. This kind of change goes into the deepest part of the soul and tells people that treating others as lesser beings is wrong, when all of their societal upbringing and societal structure has told them the opposite.

Of course this is hard and of course we have all kinds of internal debate and fights. This debate is uncivil at times. I beg you to read Dr. Martin Luthor King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail. The letter is to local clergy in Birmingham who have denounced the demonstrations and marches held in that city. The locals wanted more moderation. Dr. King was trying to get them to see that nothing happens without prodding and that their own efforts for change are helped, not hampered by the actions of the activists on the ground.

In our own way on DU, we are engaged in the type of discussion Dr. King was having with others on the various wings of the civil rights movement. Dr. King did not abandon the people who didn't agree with his tactics. Seemingly, they also did not abandon him. They did, somehow, seem to work it out, with argumetns, successes, fights, internal dissents, and even a bit of love and understanding. Maybe we can too.

From the Letter from a Birmingham Jail:

Best post this year!

And I did add it in.

"Sometimes these disagreements resulted in the implosion of the movement, sometimes these disagreements propelled the movement forward. However, rapid, boiling internal dissent is a force that propels change forward."

Of course, forward is better. :)

it is a sign of strength. I have had my opinion changed because of things I have read at DU. I have also had opinions I already had re-inforced because of things I have read at DU.

This is lively, fearless discussion board. This is discussion ABOUT something. I like that.

We are not always going to agree because we are different people coming from vastly different backgrounds and living in vastly different circumstances. I come to DU for those differences, not for the functional equivalent of sitting in front of a mirror to hear myself speak.

I like being prodded to do more. Isn't that the heart of what we are doing, asking for more? That is discomforting at times and causes bad feelings and is absolutely necessary. Honest, it's why I came here and why I still come here for some good debate.

That's why I'm here. We all have our opinions, and we all have to defend them.

It's hardest when disagreement turns personal. This happens all the time. We all are, to a certain degree, our opinions and it's very hard not to feel personally attacked when what we believe is attacked.

Those are the times that try our souls. And our patience on discussion boards. If we at DU figure how to hold up boundaries between self and belief, we will be the first in human history to achieve this milestone.

it should never be personal. This is an Internet discussion board.

not just wrong, but that I'm tough enough to take the news. Sometimes they're right and I'm wrong. Sometimes they're not. However, they're always right that I'm tough enough to withstand disagreement.

Contrast that to the sea of bobbling dittoheads, all nodding their heads in unison. Disagree with them and they're shattered, defensive, furious.

The OP is correct, the ability to disagree among ourselves is our greatest strength, allowing to hone in on those elusive truths that define us and act on them as a group instead of having them handed down from above by our deadly enemies in this world.

That is an easier task than to seek to change the way things are done. It is far, far easier to defend current structure than to ask people to take a risk and change their way of doing things.

We often don't give ourselves enough credit in the progressive world on what we are trying to do.

Thanks for reminding someone who has been close to giving up hope lately why it is worth keeping up the fight.

We ask people to take a risk. Change, in the abstract, sounds like a good thing but it is really, really hard to do. We mark our progress in inches sometimes, not yards. that is how it is done.

The progressive fight predates my involvement in it. I do what I can do in the time I have to do it in. Then, someday, someone else will take my place and continue this fight that never ends. That is how it works.

Every so often we should stop though, and smell the roses. Yes, health care reform is not perfect. But it was a victory. Now we build on it. We move the ball some more painstaking inches at a time. Hey, maybe we will catch a break and get some big movement, say a few yards, but if not, it's back to inches. That is still progress.

Read some of the late Molly Ivins. Seriously, she will inspire you, make you laugh and give you some perspective on being a liberal in a conservative world. I miss her wisdom and humor and would be most honored to pass some of that wisdom on to others.

"Any nation that can survive what we have lately in the way of government, is on the high road to permanent glory."
"The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion."

More Molly at: http://womenshistory.about.com/od/quotes/a/molly_ivins.htm

Do yourself a favor, read some Molly and get inspired.

That is one of the reasons that I refuse to add folks to an ignore list.
I vehemently disagree with some posters here but I still read to at least understand why they believe the way they do.
Understanding leads to reason, which leads to civil discourse and consensus.

...for the same reason. :)

Thank you TayTay!

:applause:

There aren't many moderates here. DU is more like the conversation between King and H Rap Brown, who called MLK a sell-out moderate, took over SNCC, and then ran it into irrelevance.

Movements are most effective when they work in support of each other. They quickly lose effectiveness when they turn to fighting groups that should be allies. DU has too many posters who are ideologically committed to tearing down the Democratic Party and/or Obama's Presidency instead of seeking to work with allies. It's mostly counterproductive.

Interesting perspective, thanks for that.

Was there any lasting effect from the civil rights movement? (I think this is an on-going movement, btw, as the idea of what civil -rights are has expanded and is expanding.)

Did the movement go too far when Brown took it over? Why? At what point did King have the attention of a public that was receptive to change and then when did it stop? what action was the one that went too far?

These are not questions of frozen history, they are questions of now. When do we stop agitating for more from health care reform? Do we have a beginning on this or is this a plateau for a number of years?

Interesting discussion.

"When do we stop agitating for more from health care reform? Do we have a beginning on this or is this a plateau for a number of years?"

Yes, when do we start?

I've heard people say, "give the Republican an inch." This is a great time for Democrats to take every inch and allow them to add up. As with the Civil Rights movement, can you imagine the disappointment some experienced when voting rights weren't a part of the package? That had to be a long year.

A start is just that, a start. Where does it go from here?

Back to topic, I think it is possible to stand and see where you came from and appreicate what it took to get there. I also think it's appropriate to look ahead and want more. These things don't cancel themselves out; in fact one builds upon the other.

I think a lot of good happened in the last two years. I didn't get everything I wanted though. We want more. There is disappointment and hope in those statements.

I prefer to think in terms of effectiveness. Were H Rap Brown's tactics effective at accomplishing anything? Not that I can tell.

What happened to the civil rights movement is that it grew. At the march on Washington you could still get all the major civil rights leader together in a room to work together on something. They didn't all agree on tactics, but they could agree to work together sometimes, and agree not to stand in each others way when one group did something on their own. SNCC leaders may not have thought that the NAACP's legal strategy was enough on its own but both groups still respected what the other was doing.

What happened in the late 60's as the movement grew is that some people spent less time fighting for civil rights and more time fighting for control over their little slice of the civil rights movement. You couldn't get everyone together in a room to talk things out anymore because the movement got bigger and viewpoints became more diverse. Growing is good but so is working together.

No movement is effective when it starts to focus on internal fighting more than it focuses on their common goals. What we have at DU are a number of socialists and Greens who believe fighting the Democratic party and/or Obama will help grow their little slice of the progressive movement. They think that, instead of working together toward common goals, they have to tear Democrats down before they build something new. But the part about building something new never happens. They just go on with infighting that doesn't advance any progressive goal.

There had to have been some common point on which agreement was reached. This is what we want and what we are fighting for. This is the historical purpose of activists who see what is initially wrong and coalesce movement.

Different types of activists are needed at different stages of a movement. There were many activists associated with the American Revolution who did an admirable part in fomenting dissent. Without this fomenting of dissent, there would have been no ensuing movement that engaged enough people to actually bring about significant change.

Samuel Adams, in boston, was an excellent agitator and street fighter who could create that sense of unease and the sense that doing nothing would worsen circumstances for people. Yet, he was useless when it came to the later developmental stages of the actual revolt and a terrible Governor os Massachusetts after the Revolution.

Different people are suitable to different tasks. What common goal do you see us pursuing? Are the Greens and other more radical elements a hindrance to his or still part of it's formation?

The progressive movements is as large as ever and the internet gives everyone a voice. We'll never have a completely unified, cohesive movement. The best we can do is try to work together on common goals and marginalize those who would rather focus on counterproductive infighting.

I agree that there are many ways to contribute and we need a movement which embraces multiple strategies. The problem arises when you have a group that believes it knows the ONLY TRUE WAY to make change and starts fighting other groups who don't agree with them. For example, those who work against progressive allies in the Democratic Party because they think direct action and revolutionary overthrow of the system are the ONLY way to make progress. They end up being a destructive force within the movement.

One of the most effective periods for the progressive movement in all of American history was during the 1930's popular front. Communists got word from the party that they were allowed to work in cooperation with the non-communist left. They contributed immensely to many organizations working on civil rights, unionizing workers, and more. All of that came crashing to a halt when Communists loyal to the Comintern were told to stop working with anyone else. The popular front period provided a glimpse of what can happen when the left works together.

Socialists and Greens who think they need to dismiss every advancement made by Obama have missed this lesson of history. There are tremendous gains to be made when we work as allies using different strategies instead of fighting each other.

If someone thinks nothing Obama does is good enough because it isn't a socialist revolution then say so. That's a valid opinion. But I see too many people deceptively belittling every accomplishment by Obama because it doesn't fit their ideal. That's short-sighted bullshit.

:thumbsup:

I have found that a huge discussion board, such as DU is a smorgasboard of opinion. We are going to find people we agree with here and people we don't. There is no way, short of draconian methods that would destroy discussion, to winnow out extreme views.

That said, DU is an excellent tool for organizing on the left. I think one of the keys is to jettison the view that you are going to find a sort of unanimity of opinion or support. I don't need everyone to agree with me in order to get something from this board. I need *some* people to agree with me and be willing to do something with that agreement. That is the gold that is here to be mined.

Coalitions come together and fall apart all the time. Democrats had huge majorities in Congress in 1977, yet the Reagan Revolution in 1980 destroyed that for years. The country had changed and we entered the current conservative era. I honestly think that the 2010 election is a part of the country beginning to turn from that. Any true movement will have fits and starts and I think 2010 was one of them. The next Congress, regrettably, will be the equivalent of saying "check" in a poker game. Nothing is going to happen. (The human suffering this will entail is beyond my ability to write about. It will be heartbreaking for so many.)

I think that a new coalition will be birthed in the coming years. We aren't there yet. The conservative distortion of the national myth of self-reliance is very, very strong still. The conservative rebound is something full of sound and fury, but signifying nothings, as some Bard or another, once wrote.

It is a hallmark of the left that we want more than we can get. It is evident in your citing of the movement's coalescing and coming apart in the 1930's. Perhaps this loss of the House will be another turning point in what is possible and serve as a point of coming together.

BTW, this conversation has been a pleasure. Thanks!

but it doesn't reflect DU. When there is something that needs doing here, we do it. Volunteers are not screened for ideology. The archives are full of examples.

"It's mostly counterproductive." I'd say it's illuminating. Democrats make the choice to stick with the Democratic Party and reject the forces that are trying to tear it down.

This point from the OP is key: "Sometimes these disagreements resulted in the implosion of the movement, sometimes these disagreements propelled the movement forward."




edited typo.

But, since I am basically extremely agreeable to begin with, there wouldn't be much of a point in agrreing with someone who is supportive to begin with. That is no fun at all.

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis is a far better way to go. If everyone on DU were to agree with me it would be synthesis, thesis, hot tea and cookies, antithesis, time-out for a soothing bath, then some more synthesis and, well, you see where this is going.

All things, including soothing moderation and "people, remember what you are doing" reminders, have their value.

Even me, hamble as that may be. (I am not actually a good person to have around when you want to have a good raucous debate. I am the one you go to after the debate, so you can get enough consensus to get to the next debate and put everyone back on track. We all have our uses.)

. . . and the means to achieve that goal. That's where there's disconnect from the agitation of the movement and the legislative arena where their aims are to be put into action. Legislative solutions almost always advance as a result of some form of compromise; something that's just not amenable to those who see only absolutes.

It is not about absolutes.
That the Democratic party leadership does not seem to have a vision of where they what to be, in say, two years.
It is the lack of a clear articulated vision that I think disturbs so many progressives.
Weather it is congress or the president, there does not appear to be clear leadership on core Democratic values right now.
The process of negotiation and compromise should not start at the center-right and move even further right.
It should start from the left and work to the center.

K&R

Put two engineers together and you have a fight. I worked in a department that had knock-down, drag-out fights between engineers on on-the-merit arguments over things that each participants absolutely understood, in their own way.

Loved working with those folks. Lively as hell.

I've just finished designing and building a shop for my property. It took me several years. I mention it because I argue with myself. I challenge myself. And eventually I discover my faults, if I'm lucky. Usually by accident. My shop came out absolutely stunningly. I'm thrilled. But it took super human effort and patience, and work and rework. And it's just this kind of process that makes me realize that we are not in control. People who think they have the answers are people I stay away from. I believe in evolution. I believe in god. But I know evolution is real. I have doubts about the god part.

The bottom line for me is that I've discovered that to make things simple and functional takes lots of work.

And I would say that after years of watching this country swirl down the drain, it looks as though the ease in which we have been allowed to live our lives has made many people lose sight of just how difficult life really is. I lived on my property for two years without electricity. And one week without water. But it's the fact that people can dismiss something like the Constitution that has me realizing how ignorant Americans are. The Constitution is a design. It's an invention. It wasn't written in a year or two. It was written over centuries. It took a group of people who decided enough was enough, and left England. And to ignore that is what it takes to be a member of the Tea Party.

This is why we argue. This is why we have opinions. Because to not, is to want the ease of a leader's rule. They liked Bush because he had the answers. They didn't have to argue. They could just go to the stores and shop, without a care in the world, as Iraqis died.

What were we talking about! :)

At our best, we are arguing about direction, form and what shape the project will take. That is healthy.

I agree with you about the way conservatives follow opinion, but don't develop opinion. It is, on some level, tiring to have a discussion with a lot of conservatives, particularly dittoheads. There is no there, there, so to speak. Nothing to discuss. There is what was said in conservative-world, but the conservative leaders and that's that.

Agreed too on the Constitution. The development of that document goes back to, at least, the Magna Carta in 1215. It took centuries for the idea that people can rule themselves to percolate up. (Hmm, it is still percolating up. Half of Conservative argument is religious and says Man can't rule himself without divine help and the other half says we are self-reliant folks who don't need civil higher powers. We have our own national house divided in thought on that.)

We argue because it matters. Love this line: "Because to not, is to want the ease of a leader's rule." Yup. Indeed.

...on this. :) This is an important discussion, and I don't want to intrude...but this is why education is so important.

Gregorian said:

"And to ignore that is what it takes to be a member of the Tea Party. This is why we argue. This is why we have opinions. Because to not, is to want the ease of a leader's rule. They liked Bush because he had the answers. They didn't have to argue. They could just go to the stores and shop, without a care in the world, as Iraqis died."

Tay, you said: "I agree with you about the way conservatives follow opinion, but don't develop opinion. It is, on some level, tiring to have a discussion with a lot of conservatives, particularly dittoheads. There is no there, there, so to speak. Nothing to discuss. There is what was said in conservative-world, but the conservative leaders and that's that."


Ignorance of history, lack of a quality education...for whatever reason...allows this, IMHO. The void in the conversation is because some...not all...who follow true conservatives and the GOP WORKS because they never learned the history we all relish. It permits one to join a Tea Party. It permits one to be drawn in by a Rove or a Bush type and believe the facts they portray.

This is why we MUST get education right in this country. I agree with President Obama on the goals, the need and the urgency. We can't afford...as a country...to lose such a large portion of our citizenry to ignorance.

Ignorance kills. We don't value education in this country, we value opinions. There is a huge difference.

...'informed citizenry' has been undervalued in this country for as long as I can remember. And it is hurting us badly. I don't think we would be in our current mess if we truly had an educated and highly informed populace.

Interrupted by the telephone :) and edited to add:


As to valuing education, I completely agree with you that our past record is dismal. And it isn't just that we haven't funded education properly. It's that, generally, people are apathetic. We take education for granted until there is a problem. We never really rethink it as an institution in order to make it better.

For those of us who have spent a lifetime rethinking education, with little power to do anything about it, THAT is very frustrating.

...http://www.benjaminbarber.com/AmericasKnowledgeDeficit_TheNation_11_29.PDF

Thank you for an excellent perspective on our travails.

:thumbsup:

... :)

...critical to moving forward in our country and fixing things that need fixing. And it's one of the reasons I come to DU.

Thank you for this. :patriot:

every group that's at the bottom of the dominant power relationship is afflicted with "bunker mentality"...

That's why it's so important to connect the dots and attack the real originators of the problems...

For instance:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9631943#9633905

And
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9638649

And
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9638669

There's my contribution to liberal infighting.

*cues Bvar's pic of Welstone* :)

I'm sick of dems telling other dems that they have to suck it up and like being screwed over by the powers that be!

It's time for the people to take back what is rightfully theirs.

Let the assholes eat cake-in their prison cells! :grr:

I've long held that being conservative is less challenging than being progressive. The vast majority of conservatives, at least from my vantage point, are devoid of intellectual curiosity. Conservatives on the Supreme Court are predictable in their embrace of big business and curtailing of civil rights. They are often on the wrong side of history, and could care less.

"Its because EVERYBODY HAD to have THEIR say. In EVERYthing. GAAWD I just could not stand it. The straight transvestites, the gay transvestites, the bi-sexual transvestites, then the union leaders, then the union organizers, then the old line marxists. the Trotskists... whatever. It would drag on for hours. Couldn't anyone just say "This is where we are going and how to get there!!!"

Every time. I hear it all the time.

Diversity of opinion is who we are as progessives and respect for those opinions is what makes us strong. The ability and desire to listen and learn, and to challenge and argue, is something the other side does not have nor wants.

I have heard it said "It's like herding csts." I have done that. Once. It was three csts. It can be done.

....but here is my answer.Why do {repugs agree) with each other so much? Because it works. Look at the last election cycle. Look at eight years of war, the rich getting richer, and the corporations becoming more powerful, and the middle class disappearing. Now how does fighting amongst each other on the left, dividing the left singuar/personal battles among liberals/progressives work again. I call bullshit. Thanks.
quickesst

are basically one group, almost all white, the same ideology, not made up of various ethnic groups, environmentalists, sexual orientation, women, minorities, etc whereas we are as the country, we have the very large tent and acceptance of all so it is natural we will have disagreements.

It is the purpose of a legislature to pass laws, whose members are elected. Sometimes, there are folks who think that the laws passed are inadequate; and, others who think that the solution is sufficient for today. The disagreement may continue.

That is one reason why movements lose traction and stop.

Movements do come apart from disagreements. If they come apart, maybe they deserve to come apart.

Your post provides a trajectory where we, as Dems, can start the conversation in terms of ironing out differences. Sadly though, I fight my cynical side everyday whenever my hopes are dashed by seeing the circular firing squad happening under the big tent of our party. I am afraid that people are too caught up in their hate and anger to see the possibility of talking things through.

Obama-bashing is too seductive for some. Parroting the simplistic and rather short-sighted views of the Republicans are also easy to do because it doesn't require a lot of thought--especially when venting frustration at the system. And then, others confuse Dr. King's notion of continuing to push for change with demonization and knee-jerk responses. Here resides the failure of civility and respect.

I truly hope that wiser heads prevail in trying to rouse our side to rally forth and fight for the progress this country needs. But, how will we ever get there when we are impeded by some who let self-righteousness and selfishness mingle in their fight to supercede the goals of what the Dems stand for and profess? :(

Our party needs an intervention. This post is a good start. Well done.

Sometimes, my hope is hard to find. You offer me hope, strength and a strong desire to be part of this progressive move forward.

Liberals, or progressives, offer up their hearts and hard work for a cause that will often only come to fruition after years and years of effort. Many leaders of change for civil rights of women, minorities, LGBT, didn't live to see their efforts rewarded. They worked for it anyway.

Can you think of something more frustrating than working for change against an infrastructure designed to resist it? Or more worth doing? We are engaged in the good fight. Every good thing that has happened in the world for average people happened because someone or groups of someones didn't give up.

Real change takes too long. It always has. Yet, we have to do it. If not us, who?

BTW, from one torchbearer to another, keep the faith. Take a monent and look behind you and see all the incredible human beings, famous and not, who did what they did to advance the cause of human liberty. Breathe for a second and realize that you belong in that line, you are their child and descendant and you carry their ideas forth for your time and to give to the next generations.
You deserve to be in their company, you honor them by doing what you do.

And take a little bow. You deserve it. This is heartbreaking work, after all.

To me what RadicalActivist says makes a lot of sense. I hate to be pessimistic, but so be it. At any rate I appreciate your post and this thread.

...to deal with as many paid, right-wing "blog warriors" as we do today.
There is sincere disagreement and then there are social arsonists.