Purity tests - how the left is killing itself

While GOP policies are deplorable, it should be recognized that when push comes to shove they get in line and support one another.  To the contrary, the Democrats/leftists/progressives form a circular firing squad and we kill our natural allies because of what are, in essence, minor policy disagreements.  This approach to politics is exemplified by virtually every political thread here.  I, for one, have had enough and hope that we (Democrats/leftists/progressives) can start to work together to accomplish our mutual goals (even if not everyone gets exactly what is wanted).

If we continue to do this, the GOP will lead this country even further into the ditch - a place from which we may never recover.

Thoughts?


At the risk of sounding glib, Steve, what kind of thoughts does a premise like that give us clearance to share, other than agreement? 

(If the reply is that internal dissent is fine until shove time, when is it ever not that time? A primary campaign? A discussion on a community chat board?)


Steve said:

 To the contrary, the Democrats/leftists/progressives form a circular firing squad and we kill our natural allies because of what are, in essence, minor policy disagreements.  

I'm not quite sire what inspired this thread.  Was it Joe Manchin's announcement that he will not support Bernie Sanders if Sanders in the nominee?


A joke I read once.

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: "Stop. Don't do it."

"Why shouldn't I?" he asked.

"Well, there's so much to live for!"

"Like what?"

"Are you religious?"

He said: "Yes."

I said: "Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

"Christian."

"Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant."

"Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist."

"Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

"Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"

He said: "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."

I said: "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.


the complaints about "purity tests" seem to be basically about wishing progressives would just shut the **** up and go along with the corporatist Democratic agenda.  Of course that ignores the reality that centrist third way neoliberalism is what got us in this mess in the first place.  So maybe insisting the progressives shut the **** up isn't the answer.  

just a thought.


mrincredible said:

A joke I read once.

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: "Stop. Don't do it."

"Why shouldn't I?" he asked.

"Well, there's so much to live for!"

"Like what?"

"Are you religious?"

He said: "Yes."

I said: "Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

"Christian."

"Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant."

"Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist."

"Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

"Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"

He said: "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."

I said: "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.

Start at 2:40. Unless you're an Emo fan, in which case start at the beginning.


ml1 said:

the complaints about "purity tests" seem to be basically about wishing progressives would just shut the **** up and go along with the corporatist Democratic agenda.  Of course that ignores the reality that centrist third way neoliberalism is what got us in this mess in the first place.  So maybe insisting the progressives shut the **** up isn't the answer.  

just a thought.

 Yup. Exactly.


ml1 said:

the complaints about "purity tests" seem to be basically about wishing progressives would just shut the **** up and go along with the corporatist Democratic agenda.  Of course that ignores the reality that centrist third way neoliberalism is what got us in this mess in the first place.  So maybe insisting the progressives shut the **** up isn't the answer.  

just a thought.

 I disagree.  I think the healthcare issue has shown (along the lines of the joke from Mr. mrincredible) that for some it's M4A or nothing, and anyone suggesting a different strategy isn't a "progressive" and may as well be a Republican.  And then, you have to be for the  correct  M4A, and any suggestion of a different transition strategy gets you tossed in the heap with the first group of "may as well be Republican".  

Nobody has to "shut the **** up", but that goes both ways.


What "inspired" this thread was the constant bashing of one another, among other places, here.  We are all much closer to one another than we are to the GOP side.  I worry that to the extent that if the nominee is not Tulsi or Bernie, the Biden/Buttigeig supporters won't be there on Election Day and if the nominee is Biden (Klinker, please don't rant), Harris, or Buttigieg, the Tulsi/Bernie supporters won't show up.  Not really sure who might be offended if Warren is the nominee.  We should be accentuating the positive rather than attacking each other.  You have people like Nan and Paul calling anyone who disagrees with them neocons and people calling them every name in the book.  In reality, the positions are a matter of degrees apart and not diametrically opposed as are the positions of the GOP.


nohero said:

 I disagree.  I think the healthcare issue has shown (along the lines of the joke from Mr. mrincredible) that for some it's M4A or nothing, and anyone suggesting a different strategy isn't a "progressive" and may as well be a Republican.  And then, you have to be for the  correct  M4A, and any suggestion of a different transition strategy gets you tossed in the heap with the first group of "may as well be Republican".  

Nobody has to "shut the **** up", but that goes both ways.

 if the progressives hadn't been pushing hard for M4A, when everyone was telling them to just get in line behind Hillary, would we even be having this serious consideration of M4A?

The dialog and disagreement is important and vital. Otherwise you get the same types of cults of personality that surround Trump and surrounded W. 



Steve said:

What "inspired" this thread was the constant bashing of one another, among other places, here.  We are all much closer to one another than we are to the GOP side.  I worry that to the extent that if the nominee is not Tulsi or Bernie, the Biden/Buttigeig supporters won't be there on Election Day and if the nominee is Biden (Klinker, please don't rant), Harris, or Buttigieg, the Tulsi/Bernie supporters won't show up.  Not really sure who might be offended if Warren is the nominee.  We should be accentuating the positive rather than attacking each other.  You have people like Nan and Paul calling anyone who disagrees with them neocons and people calling them every name in the book.  In reality, the positions are a matter of degrees apart and not diametrically opposed as are the positions of the GOP.

 nan and Paul represent about 0.5% of the electorate. A portion that is never guaranteed to vote Democratic and never has been part of the Democratic base. Don't worry about people like that. Worry about the people who voted for Obama in '08 but stayed home in'16, and the newly registered young people. 

That's more than enough votes to beat Trump. 


nohero said:

ml1 said:

the complaints about "purity tests" seem to be basically about wishing progressives would just shut the **** up and go along with the corporatist Democratic agenda.  Of course that ignores the reality that centrist third way neoliberalism is what got us in this mess in the first place.  So maybe insisting the progressives shut the **** up isn't the answer.  

just a thought.

 I disagree.  I think the healthcare issue has shown (along the lines of the joke from Mr. mrincredible) that for some it's M4A or nothing, and anyone suggesting a different strategy isn't a "progressive" and may as well be a Republican.  And then, you have to be for the  correct  M4A, and any suggestion of a different transition strategy gets you tossed in the heap with the first group of "may as well be Republican".  

Nobody has to "shut the **** up", but that goes both ways.

 I think it is fair to say that anyone who isn't for universal healthcare is not a progressive.  Health care, by and large is THE dividing line between progressives and conservative democrats.  That isn't the same thing as saying that conservative Democrats are Republicans.

They aren't Republicans but they definitely aren't Progressives either.


Steve said:

What "inspired" this thread was the constant bashing of one another, among other places, here.  We are all much closer to one another than we are to the GOP side.  I worry that to the extent that if the nominee is not Tulsi or Bernie, the Biden/Buttigeig supporters won't be there on Election Day and if the nominee is Biden (Klinker, please don't rant), Harris, or Buttigieg, the Tulsi/Bernie supporters won't show up. 

But you are not worried that folks like Manchin won't show up for Bernie?  It seems like your "concern" is a tad partisan.


Steve said:

if the nominee is Biden (Klinker, please don't rant)

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  If the nominee is Biden I will not vote for him, not because of any ideological purity test but because the cause will already be lost.  

That said, Biden's candidacy seems to be imploding in slow motion.  I suspect he will be gone on the day after Super Tuesday.  Sooner, if some responsible adult (Hunter, are you listening) takes charge of preserving what little dignity the guy has left.


Klinker said:

 I think it is fair to say that anyone who isn't for universal healthcare is not a progressive.  Health care, by and large is THE dividing line between progressives and conservative democrats.  That isn't the same thing as saying that conservative Democrats are Republicans.

They aren't Republicans but they definitely aren't Progressives either.

 And some people say universal health care has to be M4A, or it doesn't count.  Others say a mix of public and private, to ensure coverage for everyone, is the approach to take.  The "purity test" is when some say that only their M4A solution should be supported - and the others are in favor of people dying, or other nonsense like that.


Klinker said:

 I think it is fair to say that anyone who isn't for universal healthcare is not a progressive.  Health care, by and large is THE dividing line between progressives and conservative democrats.  That isn't the same thing as saying that conservative Democrats are Republicans.

They aren't Republicans but they definitely aren't Progressives either.

 So let me get this right. Let's imagine that I am for a carbon-free Energy System by 2050, guaranteed rights for all Americans (regardless of gender, age, gender identity or sexuality), massive reductions in privately owned firearms, full reproductive autonomy for all women and a reduction in foreign intervention and regime change. You're saying if I am not in support of a Universal Health Care system, I cannot Define myself as Progressive.

Before you care to answer that, I think that is a load of horseshit. Healthcare is a single-issue, and you cannot exclude someone from calling themselves Progressive if they don't agree with you about it. You can call yourselves medicare-for-all supporters, or Universal Health Care Advocates. But you cannot deny that other people may be Progressive based solely on that disagreement.


Klinker said:

But you are not worried that folks like Manchin won't show up for Bernie?  It seems like your "concern" is a tad partisan.

 this has been my question for months. Why do the progressives have to suck it up, shut up and vote for whomever because otherwise the "centrists" will vote for Trump? Why are the progressives supposed to be morally responsible for this expected amoral behavior of centrists? Why aren't the centrists being shamed for picking Trump over a reasonable (but progressive) adult like Warren?


ml1 said:

nohero said:

 I disagree.  I think the healthcare issue has shown (along the lines of the joke from Mr. mrincredible) that for some it's M4A or nothing, and anyone suggesting a different strategy isn't a "progressive" and may as well be a Republican.  And then, you have to be for the  correct  M4A, and any suggestion of a different transition strategy gets you tossed in the heap with the first group of "may as well be Republican".  

Nobody has to "shut the **** up", but that goes both ways.

 if the progressives hadn't been pushing hard for M4A, when everyone was telling them to just get in line behind Hillary, would we even be having this serious consideration of M4A?

The dialog and disagreement is important and vital. Otherwise you get the same types of cults of personality that surround Trump and surrounded W. 

 I think we're talking past each other (and also, mixing up 2016 with 2020 just confuses things).

"Get in line behind Hillary" has nothing to do with the health coverage discussion going on now.  

And I didn't say dialogue and disagreement were not vital. I said the opposite.  When it gets to the point that the "progressives" tell others that they're not real progressives (even if they're proposing solutions even more progressive than the ACA that Trump has battered), that's not helpful.


mrincredible said:

 So let me get this right. Let's imagine that I am for a carbon-free Energy System by 2050, guaranteed rights for all Americans (regardless of gender, age, gender identity or sexuality), massive reductions in privately owned firearms, full reproductive autonomy for all women and a reduction in foreign intervention and regime change. You're saying if I am not in support of a Universal Health Care system, I cannot Define myself as Progressive.

Kind of like a new Jaguar with plastic seats and an AM only radio.  You can imagine it but you'll have a really hard time finding one on the lot.


Klinker said:

Kind of like a new Jaguar with plastic seats and an AM only radio.  You can imagine it but you'll have a really hard time finding one on the lot.

 And you know this how?

I'll throw in decriminalization of prostitution and certain drugs.


nohero said:

 I think we're talking past each other (and also, mixing up 2016 with 2020 just confuses things).

"Get in line behind Hillary" has nothing to do with the health coverage discussion going on now.  

And I didn't say dialogue and disagreement were not vital. I said the opposite.  When it gets to the point that the "progressives" tell others that they're not real progressives (even if they're proposing solutions even more progressive than the ACA that Trump has battered), that's not helpful.

 But why do conservative Democrats have to be "progressive"?  The term has an actual meaning.  Its as if I insisted on describing myself as gay even though I am a man who is, by and large, attracted mostly to women.


mrincredible said:

Klinker said:

Kind of like a new Jaguar with plastic seats and an AM only radio.  You can imagine it but you'll have a really hard time finding one on the lot.

 And you know this how

Personal experience?  I suppose there could be some sort of Unicorn out there but if there is, I haven't seen their magical horn.

I mean, who knows?  I suppose in these rare instances we could go on a case by case basis but the fact remains that guys like Joe Biden are not anywhere, in any sense of the term, at all close to being "progressives".  


Klinker said:

Personal experience?  I suppose there could be some sort of Unicorn out there but if there is, I haven't seen their magical horn.

 So, based on your own personal experience you're just dismissing the idea that people can be Progressive about a lot of different issues. You're doing it with humor. You're not offering any substantive argument. There's hundreds of millions of people in this country oh, so using your personal experience seems pretty insufficient to me.


Joe Biden, Amy Klobachar, etc are conservative Democrats.  That is all fine and well.  I am not going to vote for any of them in a primary but the Democratic Party is a Big Tent and there is room for all kinds of people under its roof.

Why people feel the need to identify these folks who are clearly, in the context of the Democratic Party, conservatives as Progressives is simply beyond me.


mrincredible said:

Klinker said:

Personal experience?  I suppose there could be some sort of Unicorn out there but if there is, I haven't seen their magical horn.

 So, based on your own personal experience you're just dismissing the idea that people can be Progressive about a lot of different issues. You're doing it with humor. You're not offering any substantive argument. There's hundreds of millions of people in this country oh, so using your personal experience seems pretty insufficient to me.

I am sorry that my words are failing to persuade you.  I disagree with you but that is ok.  I believe that the set of values you have described is probably pretty rare but I could be wrong.  

My comment about Medicare was really more of an observation than anything else.  My larger point, about calling progressives progressives and conservatives conservatives is, in my opinion, the more relevant point here.


Look, I consider myself to be a liberal/progressive.  I was all in for Bernie in ‘16. It’s the tone that I find so off-putting. I’m not so much talking about centrists but about the entire Democratic Party (as for Manchin, all he does is caucus with the Dems which, while important, does not even make him a centrist).  

As no hero wrote, it seems as if there is no longer room for disagreement and discussion among the members of the tribe.  It’s become my way of you’re X. 


Klinker said:

Joe Biden, Amy Klobachar, etc are conservative Democrats.  That is all fine and well.  I am not going to vote for any of them in a primary but the Democratic Party is a Big Tent and there is room for all kinds of people under its roof.

Why people feel the need to identify these folks who are clearly, in the context of the Democratic Party, conservatives as Progressives is simply beyond me.

 That's not what I'm doing and you know it. I didn't bring up either of those two candidates, or any candidate in particular. I am saying there are a lot of issues and a lot of ways people can be Progressive about them.


Klinker said:

I am sorry that my words are failing to persuade you.  I disagree with you but that is ok.  

 You're offering me absolutely nothing in the way of persuasion that you are correct. You're just dismissing my statement, saying that you know best because of your personal experience and offering no facts to back yourself up. If you want to persuade people you need to try harder.


mrincredible said:

 That's not what I'm doing and you know it. I didn't bring up either of those two candidates, or any candidate in particular. I am saying there are a lot of issues and a lot of ways people can be Progressive about them.

 I modified my post (see above) to respond to you but you got back to me first.  You may be right.  Either way, there is a very real difference between Progressive Democrats and Conservative Democrats.


mrincredible said:

 You're offering me absolutely nothing in the way of persuasion that you are correct. You're just missing my statement, saying that you know that's because of your personal experience and offering no back to back yourself up. If you want to persuade people you need to try harder.

 I think the point I am trying to make is that I just don't care.  I am sorry I lured you down this side thread.  You may be right.  Statistically, I don't think so but I don't care enough to go looking for polling numbers.  Again, my apologies for wasting your time.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.