During the Bush years I came up with a clever & effective cheap shot against Republicans on DU . . .

. . . and while I don't remember the particular cheap shot, I do remember that other DUers liked it but debated it for its accuracy. After a bit I and the DUers who took part in that thread decided that in spite of its effectiveness (which we agreed on), it was inaccurate and moved on.

That is what I loved about DU and what I wish would return. This place used to be a like an online progressive think tank.

We don't have discussions anymore, we are polarized and we are divided.

. . .we don't do that anymore.

:evilgrin:

Sorry, that was just necessary. :hi:

all the vitriol and divisiveness the primaries stoked, there was still discussion and debate.

There still is to some extent, but it's far less. I've learned if I ask a sincere question (and I always note it's sincere), I have to wade through the snarky responses to find those who are trying to help. Sigh. :(

I wish you could remember the cheap one-liner... I love them-- accurate or not.

That being said, I wholly agree with the premise of your post. Discussions are becoming more and more rare, while trading snarky insults become more and more prominent.

But I still think there are more than enough actual discussions to keep me coming back for more. :)

. . .this is and should be a place to come to learn. To test ideas, get feedback, LEARN from each other.

You are right there are still many DUers who we learn from right now, but we have to wade through so much muck to do it.

... its members tend to cluster into somewhat distinct interest groups.

In general, there is agreement across these groups on broad principles. The Bush Presidency ran afoul of all of those broad principles.

With Bush gone, our basic agreement on broad principles starts to break down when we discuss priorities, their timing, relative tactics, and strategy.

When Obama takes any action, that action will be applauded by some, hated by others. For many his timing will be wrong, his priorities will be wrong.

During these two years, no matter what Obama focuses on, on a given day, there will be part of DU who thinks he should be focused elsewhere. And sadly, his motives and those of anyone who supports him, become evil.

Part of what has changed, I think is that where before, DU anger was pointed OUTWARD, now, its pointed INWARD. The various groups, lacking a Bush to yell about, target Obama ... and each other.

I used to come to DU for the exact reason you mention ... it was like a progressive think tank. Lots of good discussions, and ideas for how to counter the arguments of Bush and the far right.

Now ... well ... DU is kind of like the wild west. Shoot outs all over the place. Actually, a 3-ring circus is a better metaphor. I like the circus, so I still come.

. . .for turning them on to this place.

Not so much now ... I know some very liberal dems, some moderate dems, and some moderate Republicans. I'd send them all here in the past.

But I can't do that right now. Too much open hostility and personal attacks. Had some one tell me they hoped I would "die soon" the other night. I laughed it off (mocked the nut in my response), but I would not want to send my friends into an environment where that might be what they encountered.

The folks that I know in real life, recognize that this country is about evenly divided. Yea, the Dems have had a majority, but its only on paper.

When you look at the positions and the voting records of the Dems, you find some of them, like Blue Dogs, are DINOs. And they see that the GOP as some RINOs. But from what I can tell, there are more DINOs than RINOs. Basically an even split.

I think what disturbs me is that after 8 years of Bush, and 30 years of Reaganomics, many on DU thought that Obama could simply reverse it all in 18 months or so simply because the D and R count favors the Ds.

Well before Obama was elected, I think even before he threw his hat in the ring, I felt that it was going to take YEARS and YEARS to undo what's been done in the last 8 and the 30.

My sense was that it would be a long, slow fight. And I thought that most on DU knew that too. That there is no Messiah, and that fixing this mess was going to take more than 1 term, or 2 terms for Obama, but that PLUS 2 terms of another Dem President immediately after.

Much of DU apparently disagrees.

And it seemed like before, whenever there was a story being pushed that could be easily questioned and/or debunked, the truth would take hold around here pretty quickly. The facts were pushed and the people spinning something inaccurately got shut down fairly quickly. That doesn't happen anymore. Its like we collectively no longer care about fairness, accuracy, gray areas or the constraints created by political realities. And whenever someone brings those things up, particularly in regard to some criticism of the President, they are quickly labeled as apologists or someone just making up excuses and no one cares if the "excuses" are actually valid ones that anyone making a wise judgement should consider.

The biggest example of this is the refusal of some to accept the fact that this particular Senate had enough opposition to some of the more progressive policies that it was able to prevent those things. And the senators that participated in preventing those things were in no position to be "shamed" or "bully pulpitted" by the President. They don't RESPECT him enough for that to be a possibility. I think some of them would have traded their own future electability in order to use their own power to thwart any progressive cause the President called for. Liebermann is a perfect example of this.

But regardless of how inarguably true it is that this obstructionist Senate is the primary reason we failed to get certain things passed, all fingers will be pointed at the President followed by corny, cliche citations of the naively ignorant "Buck stops here" bullshit. Why bother trying to consider the deeper circumstances of our political situation when you can sum your argument up with the equivalent of a simple minded bumper sticker?

. . .a fairer shake. When you put the emphasis on facts and accuracy you sometimes find you treat people you don't agree with fairly. Right now that doesn't happen.

On DU, grey areas used to be the foundation for terrific open discussions and debate.

Now, you wander into a grey area at your own peril.

The GOP is known for seeing the world as "black and white" ... but Democrats, and the left argued that there is much GREY area.

That grey space is now a dangerous place to argue, because if you go there, you clearly have no principles (which is a strange GOP talking point that is now pushed, at times, on DU).

But I think we all agree directionally.

I think people see it as a shortcut to influencing the elected officials, rather than a way of becoming a better activist to influence the electorate. I think that they think that all they need to do is create the impression that people are very very angry or demanding in order to scare the elected officials into doing what they want, and that the Internet makes that very easy to do, much easier than going out there and getting the votes and support from the people. I think that when people do that, it is very tempting to them to be disingenuous in pulling off this manipulation.

I also think that that is unsustainable. There are only so many times they can deliver an ultimatum before they become too expensive. And if they haven't gone out and gotten the consensus, the Republicans will just repeal whatever they've twisted arms in order to get. And then there's the fact that the real-life activists are getting distracted from the real work to tend to the online street theater and prevent the mendacious talking points from spreading to new people interested in activism, or even just getting annoyed and/or discouraged themselves.

On many levels.

I'll take this one line though, to make a point of my own...

There are only so many times they can deliver an ultimatum before they become too expensive.

This ultimatum stuff goes both ways. The fear card is suffering from diminished returns regardless of which direction it comes from. I see the party relying on it way too often, and I see it fall flat on those I know and talk to. We have to find a better message to tell people that are hurting than, "Vote for us. At least we're not as bad as the other guy." It's a simple message, and one that certainly has some truth to it, but when you have little to start with being threatened with less loses it's punch quickly.

I think your first paragraph is spot on.

It's not a deliberate strategy; I think it would be an ultimatum if the Democrats had some way of stopping the consequences despite not getting elected, but that's not the case.

someone would pose a question or post a comment or article and a dozen people would add links to more information. We'd track down stats, numbers, facts, and take action. We put our outrage to work. Nowadays, I open some posts and nothing but snark--one snotty comment after another. Nothing learned in reading a thread except there are some whose posts are never worth reading and who contribute nothing to my understanding of anything.

I also miss the days when we organized marches, boycotts of rightwing talk radio advertisers, camped with Cindy, bought roses for beloved heroes, helped friends in need, called every lawmaker in Congress, etc. The days of action--not just big talk.

the first rule would need to be "no Snark allowed(at least here), and the thread could be dedicated to outside the box problem solving, brainstorming, and research....