For those of you who have been reading and following the Senator Obama “discussion” on DailyKos, I offer this cross-posted diary.
******************
I’ve read both Senator Obama’s diary and expatjourno’s as well as all the comments on their respective threads.
And I have come away clearer in my own thinking about two issues that seem to be in contention. And for that, I thank the authors.
One issue that seems to be emerging from these diaries and contributing to the disagreements among posters who comment on them is the apparent confusion between two words. Another issue is what is an extremist and who should be labeled one?
Regarding those two, I have this to say:
The confusion over words partially stems from the fact that the first word has many usages. Additionally, we may be needing to use the second word, but forget it exists.
The two words are “accommodator” and “appeaser.”
To accommodate, as we think of it in political discussion, is to come to an adjustment, make suitable, reconcile, as differecnces of opinion or position.
To appease, as we think of it in political discussion, is to conciliate especially by giving into demands; it’s special sense is to give in to the demands of a hostile or dangerous power in attempt to prevent trouble.
It is the second word’s particular definiton that seems to apply to the thinking of those who feel that some Democratic politicians are “giving in” in order to prevent trouble to themselves — that is attacks from the right and withdrawl of support by the well-heeled, whether corporate or private, that could spell loss of their own political power and position.
Now, I don’t believe Kossacks (or Boo Tribbers from here on out) are opposed to accommodation when the opposition acts in good faith. Nor should we be.
But I do believe that Kossacks are opposed to politicians and political mouthpieces who give in when the opposition clearly does not act in good faith. At least, I hope so.
From where I sit, few of the opposition have acted in good faith. Arlen Spector is about the only example of a Republican of good faith that comes to my mind at the moment. There are probably others, and who they are may depend on how you feel about your “pet” issue(s).
Also from where I sit, the crime in Kossacks’ eyes is not to refuse to accommodate a politician of good faith, rather it is to accommodate a criminal, unethical, lying goon who happens to hold office by hook or by crook. It is difficult if not impossible for me to accommodate an accommodation with such a character.
Martin Luther King, Jr., in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” decried the fact that the Negro’s worst enemy was the white clergy. He asked, how could they in Christian consciousness and good faith ask blacks to wait for whites to give them equal civil rights. He saw the white clergy’s accommodation of oppression as an appeasement of the most venal un-Christian kind.
In the same way, many Liberal Progressives — of which I include myself in their number — ask, “How long must we wait for Republicans to give us back our full civil liberties abrogated by the so-called Patriot Act; to give us back our jobs shipped overseas; to give us back the benefits that provided us with affordable health care, or an alternative that does; to give us back a clean, safe, preserved environment suitable for more than just human habitation and for future human generations; to give us back our freedom of expression and right to privacy, choice, and unfettered sexual identity; to give us back, as a Nation, our respect in the world derived from the humane foreign policies and honorable behavior among the world community; to give us back our sons and daughters sent to die for oil, ego, and empire?”
King rightly concluded that no peoples have ever been given their rights — they had to be wrested from those who denied them.
Likewise, many Kossacks have concluded that no Democratic (liberal or not so liberal) candidates can be elected as long as they do not wrest power from those who have denied it them in the last two corrupted election cycles.
Never forget that King himself was categorized as an extremist and decided that he would take a certain satisfaction in that label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love? Was not Amos an extremist for justice? Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel? Martin Luther? John Bunyan? Abraham Lincoln? Thomas Jefferson? He felt in good company among such a number.
I take a certain satisfaction in having no desire to accommodate members of the opposition who are criminals, defrauders, liars, and betrayers or scoffers of oaths to uphold Constitutional Law. I certainly will never support any candidate who seems to appease such politicians. I, like King, take a certain satisfaction in being, in this regard, an extremist. I will wear the label proudly and hope to find myself among the elect and represented by like-minded elected one day.
Someone has to stand up for this country’s best image of itself characterized by The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. And I, in the manner of Dr. King, hope that the dark clouds of illegal wars, the deep fog of lying politicians, and the fear-drenched soul-suffering of the American people will one day be dispelled by the radiant stars of honest and steadfast politicians who will stand unyielding and offer no accommodation or appeasement while fighting for what is the best in the American dream. It is my sincerest wish that you will be among their number.