Why I am a Democrat

Post Reply New Topic

Okay, I am going to address here why I ultimately stopped calling myself a "moderate." Those of you who have any perception whatsoever realize that I have every excuse to call myself a "centrist.' I am lukewarm on some liberal ideas, and I am one of the few people out there who have the BALLS to point out that we can't really afford social security without raising taxes more than we really want to. I don't really give a hoot about endangered species. The main reason I think monopolies ought to be prevented is that I know from history that we have a choice between either a self-regulating competitive market or unwanted government intervention, and trust-busting is historically the only efficient and proven means of preserving a competitive market. I'm not putting these things up for discussion, but the point is that my actual views are, like those of any educated person, complex and various.

Writ simple, the reason I tell people that I am a Democrat is that, in doing so, I feel I am putting something at stake. That way, if a member of my party, from my district, holds an office, that person's behavior reflects back on me. I think that's the honorable thing to do. On the other hand, I see calling oneself a "moderate" as nothing but crass cowardice. Have some balls. If you are a member of a party and don't like how that party reflects on you, don't run away and call yourself a "moderate." Do something to change it.

"Moderate" is the biggest joke in modern parlance. You can't NOT have a bias. The concept of a "middle-ground" is a myth. DEAR GOD, I mean look at the Republican party right now: they aren't part of some great "political gradient." Like every other political organization in the world and throughout history, they are a hodgepodge alliance of diverse and sundry interests, many of which often conflict with each other. Right now, I would be highly embarrassed to be a Republican because of the juvenile behavior of certain Tea Party Republicans. My contempt for Republicans is based partly on the fact that, because they have been so uncritical and unresponsive, they have let their party go to the hogs.

Have some balls, people. Pick a political party, and make a point of beating your representative with a cane every time that person does something to embarrass you. I think every American ought to familiarize themselves with the local leaders of their political party and be there, holding cattle prods, preparing to zap them in the testicles if they do something that would give members of the other camp ammunition to call them complete idiots. When you choose a party, you put your reputation with your colleagues and friends on the line, and you have a motivation to make sure that the people who represent you in that party are not complete morons or offensive apes.

I've had moderates claim that calling myself a Democrat must mean I'm an extremist or that I "have blinders on." That's the zeitgeist lately, and I think it's time to call it out for the load of horse crap it is. If anything, knowing that I have that label hanging over my head actually makes me all the more aware of members of my own party who are making me look like an idiot. It gives me a motivation to vote against them, so they can't go on giving me reasons to put a bag over my head every time I step out the door.

There is nothing heroic about calling yourself a "moderate." It doesn't make you some Great Arbiter of All that is Sensible. It just means you are too much of a coward to really put something on the line, and you are too lazy to play an active, vocal role in your political party. I've got news for you: the general election is not the democratic part of our government. You don't really have a real say in the general election, EVER. The only place where you have a say is in what horse YOUR party, if you are a member of one, puts up to run. If the people you see running for office are complete morons, sorry, but you pissed away any say you might have had in it if you never picked a team and had a say in who played on it.

Become an active member of one party or the other, and actually show up at their events. If you know that someone trying to gain prominence in that party is a complete waste of skin, say something, FOR GOD SAKE, man! For example, someone like John Edwards never would have had any chance to run for President if more liberals out there were paying attention and realized that, when that creep shakes your hand, he's not looking at you. He's sizing up his next target for butt-kissing.

Also, listen closely, and for GOD SAKE, take actual notes! Be a good student. THE TAXPAYERS PAID GOOD MONEY FOR YOUR EDUCATION, YOU UNGRATEFUL WRETCH! HOW DARE YOU SIT THERE LIKE A SESSILE SPONGE??? The taxpayers ought to come and kick your butt for wasting their hard-earned money, which they paid for you to have a decent education, all because President Jefferson promised it would make democracy work! Good men and good women have invested good money and faith IN YOU, so you could have the knowledge to keep our Republic alive! When they could have selfishly hoarded their wealth to save for retirement or spent it on luxury, THEY PUT THEIR FAITH IN YOU! You ought to know that resting on your shoulders is the investment and hope of the generations that came before you. You were their hope that someday all of their efforts to be good people would be worthwhile. That's what they always said! "The hope is in the children." THAT WAS YOU they were talking about, you morons!

To me, calling yourself a "moderate" suggests non-involvement and non-participation. When you call yourself a "moderate" to my face, you are telling me that you don't care. You may pretend you are "above the fray," but those of us who know better realize you are a useless, lazy piece of trash. There was a time when I was taken in by people who think they're the Great Arbiters of All that is Sensible because they're too dickless to ever stand for anything, but that's water under the bridge. The next moderate who tells me to my actual physically present face that somehow I've "drunk the kool-aid" because I do choose to stand for something, I am going to break that person's legs, right there charlie-on-the-spot.

I am a liberal, but not a democrat. Because they are just neocons in progressive clothing.

Right there is the flaw of your thinking. You put the Collective ahead of the Individual. The Collective exists for the good of Individuals, not the other way around. First order of business; guard your own interests and needs. If there is any energy and resources left over you may be charitable to the parties of your choice.

People do not exist for the sake of the Republic. The Republic is a place which makes it possible for them to exist for their own sake.

ruveyn

start looking outside the false dichotomies and you just might see something surprising.

anyway what do you actually mean bu "moderate" in relation to what?
if you are speaking of the us you should know that the political spectrum there is skeved compared to the rest of the western world.

Ultra correct. In the U.S. we have two right of center parties who engage in a shouting match every two years.

In order to get to the correct centering one needs two opposing forces (genuine opposition) to balance off each other.

ruveyn

or you need to open for the possibility of anyone to start and maintain a political party.

In a system of First Past the Poll Wins the tendency is for there to be two or at most three political parties.

See: Duverger's Law.

ruveyn

doesnt hold true, we got a dozen political party in power at any one time and many more trying to gather votes to be pu into power.

it allows anyopne a chance to make their ideology and thoughts work where most other systems are highly limited in the political spectrum they represent,

as can be seen in the us for an example.

Actually, Ruvie, I probably shouldn't have put that in there because it's not really central to my intended topic for discussion. Personally, I don't like buzzwords like "individualist" and "collectivist" because the dichotomy suggests that one comes at the expense of the other or that one constitutes an absence of the other. This is just not so.

Navigating around such buzzwords, being able to stand on your own and use your own judgement is not an area where I think it's possible to over-perform, and I also think it's important to respect other people's right to privacy and individual autonomy. Where the "individualist" is mistaken is in the assumption that this is simply the inverse of collectivist thought. If you claim that other people have an obligation to respect the "liberty" of others, though, you are still placing a demand on other people. The demand that you place on me is to, for case example, allow you to paint your house whatever color you want to, even if I find it to be odious and have the ability to put a lien on your house to force you to change it. For me to respect your individual right to such liberty, I have to believe that part of my collective responsibility to respect that right, rather than invading upon it just because I can get the votes for it. Therefore, the myth of the "middle-ground" is no more true here than it is elsewhere.

Individualism is not the opposite of collectivism. The only thing that is truly the opposite of collectivism is being a selfish pig and trampling the rights of others wherever it happens to be convenient, but the beautiful thing is that there is nothing more self-empowering than to choose of your own conscience to live up to your duty, not because you are forced to, not because it's in your selfish interests to do so, but because you just think it's the right thing to do. That's true individualism. Don't be fooled by false dichotomies, especially those that attempt to pitch virtues as being at war with each other.

Unfortunately, some people have developed this mindset that choosing not to take part in their society or have a source of identity is somehow an assertion of their individual will. On the contrary, I can't think of a more effective way to castrate yourself in that regard. Furthermore, if you refuse to adopt a party because you claim that neither is good enough for you, that renders you completely ineffectual in changing either of them for the better. Furthermore, I see it as rather narcissistic and arrogant. It's like saying, "I'm too cool to be seen with these guys." I find it lame.

I've got news for you: you are not the voice of impartiality. You are not the Prime Arbiter of All that is Sensible, and I get tired of these supercilious as*hole "moderates" who think they are. If you don't want to have a voice in either of the two major political parties in our country, that's your lookout. If you want to be an ineffectual coward, it's not my job to force you to grow a ball. However, I choose to call myself a Democrat. I do so because I am prepared to accept responsibility if someone they put in office turns out to be a destructive idiot or a criminal. I do so because, by staking something on my opinion, it means that much more. It means that, if my party chooses to run a complete fool, I have a right to be angry because they are causing personal embarrassment for me. I consider myself obligated to put only the best and the brightest candidates up to run, and I consider it a personal failure if that fails to be the case. Without anything invested in it, my opinion means nothing. It's an empty voice howling into a dark night.

You're talking about avoiding false dichotomies but also pledging allegiance to the Democratic party because you don't want to take the "middle ground"? You have your message a little confused there.

Party loyalists tend to be the dullest of the bunch since they're usually the ones that live that actually believe the words the come out their politician's mouth and turn a blind eye when they do the opposite. Partisan hacks, they serve no purpose besides being pawns for the corporate interests that own both parties.

Political parties are pretty weak.

No, I am claiming that the "middle ground" does not exist because it is a false dichotomy. Both I and any member of the GOP has the same responsibility, which is to do everything that we can to make sure that the people who represent us in the general election are not criminals or incompetents. It is the competition between our respective parties that gives us the motivation to run only the best, but one party's loss is not necessarily the other's gain.

No, you are just too ignorant and shallow to understand it.

This is a false stereotype, and it is an example of the general ignorance of these asinine people who call themselves "moderates." If you choose to consider members of one particular party to represent you, you are actually a lot more aware of the screw-ups and mistakes of members of your own party. When a person who represents you says something stupid in public, you wince. When that person acts like a fool, you feel that image sticking to you. Democratic party loyalists are probably more critical than anybody of individual Democratic politicians. When people like John Edwards screw up, the GOP has a little celebratory moment, but then they forget about it. The Democrats, on the other hand, see it as a lasting and painful source of humiliation for their party. Affiliating yourself with a party actually gives you a vested interest in keeping the idiots at bay.

"Moderate" hacks are nothing but poll-chasing pawns of corporate interests. They are dishonest people who are willing to say just about anything to win a vote from you, and they are categorically untrustworthy.

Furthermore, so-called "moderates" tend to have extremely short memories in general.

I'm a Democrat not because the party is always right (much of the time, it's wrong), but because the alternative is the Republican party, which plays up to the uglier side of people's natures with fear and bigotry. In the end, the Republicans make the powerless, the poor, and the vulnerable the scapegoats for America's problems, while feeding the rich and powerful under the pretext that they are the job creators. If they got everything they wanted, I doubt we'd have anymore jobs in America than we do now. Just poorer people.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The liberal democrats were no better. For decades they kept poor urban Black folks down on the welfare plantation. They did little to better the lot of Black folks.

ruveyn

Feeding people, and seeing that they have shelter is something.
And it's an undeniable fact that there is little job opportunities in the hood. If capitalism is supposed to work for inner city black people, then capitalism needs to be willing to take a short term loss, and open businesses in poor neighborhoods, and hire the people living there.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I am afraid that this can be a failing with members of the GOP, yes. Thankfully, that is not always the case, and there are members of the GOP who have served generally with dignity and honor. McCain and Burr are two examples I can point to of members of the GOP who might help earn the GOP a better name. They are solid conservatives, but they seem to be pretty well insulated against the more irrational dogmas common in the GOP. If the GOP were to put in more people like that and the Dems kept messing up, I would find it very hard to remain a loyal Democrat for very long.

Of course, that is the difference between conditional loyalty and uncritical loyalty. Another reason I think moderates tend to be stupid is that I still haven't met one who realizes there is a difference. When I say "I am a Democrat," they always seem to say, "huh-huh-huh, you drunk the kool-aid." They don't seem to have a concept that I could be a Democrat for perfectly practical realistic reasons. This is one thing that makes so-called "moderates" particularly offensive.