Skip to main content

View Diary: Invitation To Respectful And Honest Discussion Between Party Loyalists And Progressives (58 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Do we need to bridge differences? (4+ / 0-)

    You seem to be describing two different parties, the Democratic Party and the Green Party, rather than different wings of the Democratic Party.  I don't think there's necessarily a need to bridge differences between those two parties any more than there is a need to bridge differences between the Democratic and Republican parties.  We have different views of the world and that's not a bad thing, just the way things are in a diverse country like the United States.  One side shouldn't necessarily bend to the other's will.

    On some issues we have broad agreement like climate change and most social issues, but part ways in areas like foreign policy and the budget.  Why not just work together in areas where we agree, and agree to disagree on the other areas?

    Cynicism is what passes for insight among the mediocre.

    by Sky Net on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 11:53:37 PM PDT

    •  There is a specific reason I wrote this. (6+ / 0-)

      This is a good suggestion:

      On some issues we have broad agreement like climate change and most social issues, but part ways in areas like foreign policy and the budget.  Why not just work together in areas where we agree, and agree to disagree on the other areas?
      Here's where I'm coming from... The citizen is sovereign, and the government is supposed to be under the control of the people.

      To me, that supersedes party affiliation.

      Yes, political parties may fill the need for policy differences.  For example, someone from one political party may think that a certain tax level is appropriate, and someone from another party may think a different tax level may be better.

      But when it comes to fundamental issues such as the rule of law, justice and equality, and government corruption, we should all find the way to work together.

      I'm assuming that as citizens, regardless of party affiliation, there are some fundamental areas we would agree with.

       

    •  That's not necessarily true. (0+ / 0-)

      I'm a Progressive. I recognize that the Green party doesn't have a snowball's chance in Florida.

      So I'm participating in what I've been told, all of my life, is a big tent party.

      I identify closest politically with people like Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat.

      We aren't some bunch of lefty insurgents here.

      We, the Progressives, are actually the traditionalists in this party. We argue that if the Democrats can return to fighting for people who work for a living, using left-wing, populist rhetoric, we'll win big just like FDR did.

      We're arguing for the support of the welfare state and the values of this political party.

      We don't see you as the Democratic party. We see you as a Republican admixture that came on board when the southern strategy became so odious to you that you couldn't in good conscience stay a Republican, and unfortunately, you brought your corporatist nonsense with you.

      We don't hate capitalism or rich people, but we do think that a lack of pay equity has completely crashed our economy, and if we solve that problem, things will get humming again.

      An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

      by OllieGarkey on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 08:02:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Um, Ollie (0+ / 0-)

        Do you have some personal knowledge of Sky Net or is this just a gut reaction?

        Usually, defections from one's opposition are seen as a good thing to be encouraged. If Sky Net finds the southern strategy to be odious, that would be one point of unity surely.

        Nothing human is alien to me.

        by WB Reeves on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 04:48:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site