I just came up with this in another Diary Thread, but I thought it was an argument that should be addressed. Basically, the vilification of Greens in 2K, and now the attempted one on Dean people today makes no logical sense, based on the presumptions of those making the argument. It's conradictory, and exposes those who make the argument's biases more than anything else.
Now let's look at the logic here, kids!
- Nader voters cost us the election in 2K! Evil splitters! It was so close, and you cost it for us! (NOTE - Full disclosure, did not vote for Nader and think Greens are greatly silly.)
- However, "swing voters" and Reagan Democrats went for Bush! We must triangulate our agenda and "compromise", in order to get them back!
Okay, Bat Kids, riddle me this. You see the contradiction, don't you?
Most of the swing and RD's went for Bush, it was still basically a 50/50 split, and it was the Nader crowd that flipped it...then logically reclaiming either group would put the Dems over the top. You can't have it both ways. If picking up the swing/RD crowd would be impossible under a more "left" (and how did a straight talking moderate from VT become "left") candidate, then what was up in 2K with a moderate and semi-conservative running as P/VP? We still lost them.
So, what's up w/that. We have two groups to appeal to. We already know that losing most of one (Swing/RD) can be beaten by getting the other (Green). We know that even with a moderate slate, we didn't get Swing/RD. So the solution is obvious...
We have to try even harder for the group we couldn't get when we pandered like crazy to them. Better yet, we need to pander more! On the other hand, let's vilify the Greens and dump on them. Funnier yet, let's tell them it's all their fault, and they need to pander and compromise to the other group that we already know we could have beaten with the Greens voting with us.
Erk? What?
Logically, it just doesn't hold up. And it's a dead giveaway. What all of the party "moderates" are really saying is "we won't vote for your agenda...not even part of it". But they don't want to admit that openly, or even to themselves. It would kind of screw up their worldview as enlightened "liberals" who care.
What they really want is to feel morally superior...but when it might hit their wallets or their lives, they go AWOL. Equalize the responsibilities of the military and defending the country? No draft in my lifetime says comfortable Dems! Implicit to this is being quite happy letting poorer kids die to protect you and yours. Truman wanted national health care in the 40's, and we still don't have it. Of course, that would hit comfortable Dems. wallets...and they got good health care. These are just a couple in a universe of example cases.
Now could all of you do the rest of us a favor and stop pretending you're afraid of losing Swing/RDs and openly admit that, if fact, you just don't like the agenda. And you wouldn't vote for it. Or you feel held hostage to it, in the same way you attempt to do so to the Green crowd with the ABB bludgeon, as it would then apply to you.