Honestly, politics 101: you make a coalition of compatible interests. You forge bonds of understanding for the concerns of others. I mean, that’s in ANY political alliance, but in a progressive alliance, especially so, because ours is a philosophy of compassion. We know that if you know where someone is coming from, you can much better live and work together. Don’t we?
The problem isn’t single issue voters, it’s “Zero Issue Voters”. They just want to win, but what can they do for me? All they can offer is just what Republicans offer but less so. I get 97% of Republican judges confirmed instead of 100%…
And then I’ll get a lecture about this is important for winning elections?
And you know this how?
Well, I’ve been around a bit myself and I don’t think that’s how you’ll win, and I also don’t see how it’s any different than the progressive sellout we’ve been dealing with for 30 years. And if you DO win that way, I don’t see how you’ll be representing me at all with your Zero Issues.
Pragmatism is not about getting rid of your convictions, it’s about compromising on your conviction for practical reasons, to compromise, because a theory is not yet well implemented in practice or this sort of concern, but if you give up your issues, that’s not pragmatism, that’s just removing the rudder from your ship to replace it with an additional sail… look how FAST you’re moving now!
My problem with politics is Zero Issue Voters.
I think a lot of people ar sick to death of “issues” at this point and want to know “what’s in for me”?? and I don’t mean that in a greedy selfish way, I mean, and I am speaking for me, at this moment (may change my mind tomorrow), but I want to be involved, I want to help, but nothing the dems have done these past 5 years have made me think “yeah! there’s someone who will get out on top of things/be my voice, etc. etc.”,(ok, with a few exceptions) — here’s soemthing I can get behind!
Me the potenially disaffected, disillusioned vcter:
So why shouldn’t I be self absorbed? Take care of me and mine and leave the rest of you to junk it out?
Oh, too funny, “Nothing Else Matters” just came on iTunes….
I had a student in Japan who played and sang this song better than da boys in Metallica themselves … remind me to diary on Hiro my hero someday.
Ironically I fully understand the idea of spreading out… I’m a very big picture (to a fault) oriented person… so I like to see what ties issues together and this also shows where compromises are best made and how they don’t have to be full on cop outs.
Pro-choice… not an issue to play with. We need to ADD other issues which generate just as much concern, not jetison it.
Look, kos is keen on this idea that the FEC should not regulate blogs… how the hell is that more important than keeping the woman’s studies set happy? It’s not. Not politically nor least of all strategically.
It’s not looking for the big picture, it’s looking at a narrow little picture.
I actually AM for breaking down any culture of single issue voters, but by uniting the issues, not splitting them off for second class non-treatment.
egad.
ranting again.
cheers.
I could listen to you all night! 😉
thankyou thankyou thankyou.
The union I was in when I lived in the U.S. was prepared to sell out foreign workers, because the white workers didn’t much like them — we didn’t speak English properly. The union leadership were prepared to sell out affirmative action, because it wasn’t a ‘bread and butter’ issue. They didn’t care too much whether or not they got child care because that was a ‘women’s issue.’ They didn’t give a shit about what happened to part-time workers because that was a ‘special interest.’ They wanted to focus only on things that ‘affected everybody’ — ie pay.
But you know what? When I was out on the picket line, I didn’t see too many of those ‘moderate’ union members that they were trying to woo. Most of the people I saw out there were the same people that the union was willing to screw over on behalf of those ‘moderate’ members.
It’s a sad thing when you figure out that your union isn’t your union.
Agh — having a grumpy night tonight. Thanks for a great and timely diary.
I’ve noticed the same thing when out in the street.
The undecided get to be prima donna’s… and teases “I miiiiight vote for youououou!”
I’d stand up for you in a heartbeat.
It’s one of the things that’s kept me out of straight party politics my entire life. I have lots of issues that are important to me, some of them are espoused by the democratic party (in theory) and some by the republican party (in theory — as opposed to GWBush’s Rep. party. I don’t even recognize that one…)
But when every single principle is available to be bartered, then what have you got?
Nothing, and no one to vote for you.
Yes, yes, yes.
A question I’ve wondered about — and I’ve seen this raised by other folks, but never answered — is where the line is to be drawn. On abortion, for example, we’re told that electing the anti-choice Langevin or Casey won’t harm reproductive rights; once we get a Dem majority they’ll vote with their leadership and anti-choice legislation won’t make it to the floor. Even if this is true (and I’m not sure voting behavior can be so confidently predicted), where’s the tipping point? How many anti-choice candidates can we approve before the center of gravity shifts within the party on this issue? And when we reach that limit, whatever it may be, how can we stand against candidate number x+1 on grounds of choice? At that point, the principle has already been abandoned in favor of power.