Skip to main content

Joseph M. Schwartz

The 2012 election poses a tragic choice of evils for the Left.  On the one hand, the Obama administration disappointed labor, youth, and communities of color who mobilized to elect him, by failing to advance an anti-corporate recovery strategy in 2009 when the Democrats controlled Congress. More of the same, thereafter, would leave the working class still mired in an economic trough, while Wall Street has fully recovered.  On the other hand a victory this fall by the Republicans, dominated by the radical Right, would threaten all the social gains of the last century.

The first tragedy, is that the Obama administration embraced the policies of the “liberal” wing of Wall Street, rather than a bold program for rapid economic recovery. Instead, Obama put Tim Geithner, Larry Summers and other Wall Street cronies in charge of the Treasury.  Had Obama used the electoral mandate to push for stronger stimulus, a massive public jobs program, tough re-regulation of the financial industry, and major aid to foreclosed and underwater homeowners, the recovery would have been far less anemic. Obama’s concern for losing Wall Street alienated much of Main Street; his continued failure to relieve distressed homeowners means that millions of American families will face massive debt for years.

     On the other hand, mass constituencies of the Left, ie organized labor, feminists, and Black and even many Latino voters – despite increased deportations -- fear that a Republican presidential victory could roll back the gains of decades of struggle.  Much of the fervent hostility to Obama is fueled by a right-wing racial populism. The Republicans’ main electoral slogan will be: “time to take back OUR country,” appealing to vulnerable white working class people’s suspicion that their distress is due to an administration favoring poor folks of color (far from the truth, but “in politics perception is reality.”) Consequently, some white working class “Reagan Democrats” will return to the GOP fold.

Thus, some of our closest allies may carry water for a centrist Democratic President who failed to lead in a progressive direction. The major international unions lined up this spring behind Obama’s re-election, despite his earlier failure to fight for labor law reform, since Romney actively opposes labor rights in the public and private sectors.  Most LGBT and feminist organizations will mobilize for Obama, given his endorsement of same-sex marriage and the Republican “war on women” threatening reproductive freedom.  Expanding the gender gap will be central to many progressive Democrats’ fall electoral hopes. And even some health care activists will support the President, as while “Obamacare” represented a huge subsidy to the private insurance industry its legislative defeat (or overturning by the Supreme Court) might put the principle of universal health care coverage off the political agenda for another decade.

The weakness of the Left and labor meant that Obama faced little grassroots pressure in 2009 to govern from the left.  Until the Occupy movement emerged in the fall of 2011, where were [the] movements against foreclosures and unemployment comparable to those of the early 1930s?  Even FDR only enacted progressive reforms in response to pressure by mass movements from below.

Progressives  can mostly avoid the tragic electoral choice faced by mass constituencies in this presidential race, by doing our activist and educational work in social movements. Presidential campaigns, controlled top down, are not an effective venue for fighting dominant corporate ideology.  But what the Left and popular movements can accomplish is constrained by state power. Thus, many of the mass constituencies of the Left will mobilize for the re-election of the President. Obama still has strong support in the African-American community, despite the valid criticisms that Tavis Smiley and DSA National Chair Cornel West make of his silence on the inner city poor or the mass incarceration of Black and Latino youth.  

Until the US Left builds real organizational capacity at both the national and local level, we’ll often face unpalatable choices in mainstream politics. How could we begin to redress this situation?  The democratic left  and its allies in the labor movement and communities of color must work to link the youthful, disproportionately white, anti-corporate energy of Occupy to a broader anti-corporate coalition. We should press our friends in labor about the importance of building a non-labor, community-based national political organization that is pro-labor, but not controlled by labor, to engage in protest and community organizing but also electoral politics. This movement will need to run its own candidates – in Democratic primaries or as independents -- to channel the grievances of underemployed and indebted college graduates, and the multi-racial, de-unionized workers of the new “precariat” (with neither stable career paths nor decent wages and benefits).

     For most Americans, electoral politics will be the primary form of politics this fall. Thus, progressives  should seriously consider working collectively, in progressive Congressional and state legislative races. In Ohio, liberal-left Senator Sherrod Brown will face a tough re-election battle, as will Senator Amy Klobuchar in Minnesota.  

We   can use protest tactics to interject  the crucial issues at candidate forums and other public venues that most candidates will not raise: progressive taxation, infrastructure and alternative energy sources, and major cuts to the wasteful “defense” budget. Here we can use materials from our educational projects around the massive resurgence of poverty (the 50th Anniversary of The Other America project) and the critique of the bi-partisan neo-liberal economic policies of fiscal austerity, regressive tax cuts, and economic deregulation (the GETUP project – Grassroots Economic Training for Understanding Power. (Contact the national office for details about both projects).

      The absence of an organized, “federated” Left (with national, state and local affiliates) meant that Wisconsin was not replicated across the country. If Occupy links up with grassroots movements fighting against state cuts to crucial public goods, such as higher education, then that insurgent energy can be linked to fights over state policies that affect millions.

 The future of the labor movement depends in part on state legislative races, as the Right has prioritized passing more state right-to-work laws and attacking state employee collective bargaining rights. ALEC has made it clear that their goal is to kill the U.S. labor movement, as well as the right to vote for the young, the elderly and the working poor.  We must prioritize fighting voter suppression laws: the Right is trying to deny a basic right won by the sacrifices of millions of abolitionist, feminist, labor, and civil rights activists over the past two centuries.

              Whatever the outcome of the 2012 elections, when the automatic cuts to discretionary programs required by the summer 2011 budget agreement hit this December, we should be out in the streets.  We will need a powerful mobilization to demand that the rich and corporations pay their fair share, and that the hugely wasteful military budget be cut. These revenues could then support not just the funding of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but also restore federal job training and anti-poverty programs and revenue sharing with the states to reverse the brutal cuts to public services, and WPA and CCC-style direct public employment programs to end the ongoing jobs crisis.

While we  may have hard choices to make on presidential politics this fall, we can deepen our commitment to building a multi-racial, labor-based, grassroots progressive coalition that can influence state power and turn back the austerity politics of the center-right. If we do that, we may eventually achieve sufficient strength that we can vote for what we want, rather than having to vote against what we fear.

Joseph M. Schwartz is a National Vice-Chair of Democratic Socialists of America  and teaches political science at Temple University. His latest book, The Future of Democratic Equality: Reconstructing Social Solidarity in a Fragmented America (Routledge, 2009) recently won the American Political Science Association’s David Easton award for the best book recently published in political theory.
This essay is from the Summer 2012 issue of Democratic Left.
Posted with permission.

Poll

Do you see the election choice as difficult ?

16%12 votes
38%28 votes
38%28 votes
6%5 votes

| 73 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Not a hard choice at all. (23+ / 0-)

    I fear Romney's economic policies even more than i fear his social policies.

    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

    by sewaneepat on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 03:27:09 PM PDT

  •  Pretty easy choice, Obama and Rmoney are like day (14+ / 0-)

    and night. I'll vote for Obama with pleasure! Rmoney should just STFU already!

  •  Hmmm... (26+ / 0-)

    Should I have the burger, not really cooked the way I'd prefer, or the ground glass? Burger... ground glass... burger... ground glass...

    Damn, I just can't decide!

    Fair's fair. I don't vote in your church; don't go preaching in my government New video: "Plans"

    by Crashing Vor on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 03:36:47 PM PDT

  •  Feh! (9+ / 0-)

    I wish my mother's angry ghost would haunt you!

    She's not haunting me. I vote Democratic.

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 03:54:40 PM PDT

  •  Okay, folks, read more carefully (6+ / 0-)

    The diarist is NOT saying "Gosh, it's hard for a progressive to choose between Rmoney and Obama, they're so similar!" okay? Some comments so far make me think you saw the headline, rage-skimmed the article, and typed your snark without really understanding the diary.

    The diarist is telling the truth: if you are a real progressive, you feel disappointed by some of Obama's policy decisions. Getting Obama re-elected won't get progressive policies passed. We need to do more than just re-elect Obama. But yeah, OBVIOUSLY we need to get Obama elected, AS WELL.

  •  Interesting. Obama says (4+ / 0-)

    and the disaffected left somehow manages to not know enough about about the changes already in place.  Who are these grass-roots activists?  The people who spend hours educating people about the ACA?  Nope.  The people who support labor?  Nope.  The people who are thrilled about progress on LGBT issues?  Nope.  

    Basically what we have is a group of the same kind of spoilers who brought us Reagan, Bush twice, and are hoping for the Trifecta this fall.  

    You need to have genuine facts, not FDPauL's take on everything Obama.

    I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

    by I love OCD on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 04:09:19 PM PDT

    •  Your thinking is nearly as muddled (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      native, for 6 too

      as those disaffected Americans who will pull the lever for Romney.

      In your simple binary world, there are only two possibilities. If one is a fervent Obama supporter then that person is obviously a true activist.

      If, on the other hand, one voices disappointment in some or many of the President's policies, that person can't possibly be an activist but simply sits on their hands.

      I know it's hard for some to believe but many of us were actively involved in the labor movement, the civil rights movement and the peace movement while the President was in grade school, some before the President entered school, and some  before the President was born. And as difficult as it is to understand, some of us will vote for the President while continuing to fight against those policies we oppose.

      If you think the President's education policy is wonderful, I strongly disagree with you.  I spend a significant amount of my time protecting my staff and students against the wrongheaded policies of Arne Duncan and Michigan's Repunlican governor.

      The ACA has some good features but right now insurance rates are skyrocketing and making insurance coverage either impossible or next to impossible for many citizens, often with very negative consequences.

      So you go right on ahead and live in your simple either/or world. We "disaffected leftists" will continue to fight for justice and peace - hopefully with support from the White House, but if not ...

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 06:21:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  At some point (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    native, for 6 too, kalmoth

    I don't see November 2012 being about hard choices. At all.

    The Democratic Party is flawed, fucks up royally, and makes tragic mistakes. The GOP is evil. Things will be profoundly and risably worse if Mitt Romney is in the White House. I don't how anybody could think this was anything but something written in stone like a towering monolith that could topple over on us all and destroy this nation.

    I agree that neoliberalism has been awful for building the Democratic Party brand as an alternative to Movement Conservatism. That it helps the right, rather than checks it let alone rolls it back. I'm also a big critic of this President, and some of the bigger shortcomings of his administration, but on his worst day, Obama is better than a Movement Conservative Republican. I can't let my frustrations with Obama and the Democratic Party make me confuse just how stark the contrast between the two options is, or conflate a messy and disjointed bunch herding cats with goblins and orcs growing Uruk-Hai.

    Especially a souless empty suit like Romney who will be whatever the Koch Brothers want him to be to keep his job once he's in the White House.

    No "lesser of two evils" for me there.

    I'll take being in the company of somebody I think is sometimes an ass over oversight by an assassin every time.

    Let's be stark:

    Movement Conservatism will kill more innocent Americans than Osama Bin Ladin or Tim McVie could ever dream of. It rises to the level of being a national security threat in my opinion.
    That is why it's so hard, along with a castrated news media, the GOP being the party of the Rich and Powerful with access to big money in return for pay for play legislation, and Citizen's United giving them the ability to drown people in lies, for non-Movement Conservative's to build a better opponent to Movement Conservatism.

    I get having issues with the Obama administration, and the Democratic Party in general. I have those objections. But deliniating a forty year struggle from an election cycle's struggle shouldn't be something that needs a lot of intellectual hard lifting to arrive at.

    Obama. Every. Damned. Time.

    I also have the ability to parse black and white evidence staring me in the face that is bigger than a "Obama failed" narrative that is simplistic, both tactically and intellectually.

    There is a slice of the Democratic Party that hates the Democratic Party. Call them Blue Dogs, call them reasonable centrists, or call them Liebercrat pieces of shit, but they exist. I can't speak of my frustrations strictly in terms of the administration's failures to do x, y, and z without noting that you have to ignore, disregard, or downplay the greater obstructionism that occured via Democratic Congressional forces that can't be controlled by the President.

    And there are existential issues that transcend disappointment.

    Like watching Anton Scalia use the travel restrictions put on slaves to defend his racist position on brown people in Arizona, and John Roberts say that, if something evil happens often enough, then it can't be considered cruel and unusual anymore, and Sam Alito say we should be able to kill kids who commit adult crimes with a zeal that makes me think he would want to watch executions of youths convicted of murder on pay-per-view, I can't couch 2012 in "two evils" terms.

    One more Alito, and God Knows, slavery might be back if the Scalitos can rationalize making slavery a color-blind institution being enough to make it okay.

    As what commonly gets referred to online as a DFH, or Dirty Fucking Hippy, I have issues with the Democratic Party that are longstanding, but I don't ever confuse the grand struggle with the ominous cliff.

    I think everything you said that is unrelated to the self-defeating and completely unnecessary to your greater point "lesser of two evils" background narrative, is worth supporting so I'm reccing your diary and your tip jar and I want to thank you for sharing your thoughts. I think your goals are my goals in a lot of areas.

    I am from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party

    by LeftHandedMan on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 04:10:15 PM PDT

  •  The Other Way of Describing 09-10 is That Dem (7+ / 0-)

    leadership was so determined to keep progressives out of the picture as to accept a historic midterm election loss for the whole party in exchange.

    Those of us who are engaged or activist will be doing our parts for election this year of every Democrat we can help. In that sense it's not a difficult choice. Thankfully the Democrats are approaching this election acting a little more like Democrats than they have for most of the recent decades.

    The big question is whether they can win back the voters they let drift away. Progressive activists can only do so much of the professionals' work for them.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 04:11:10 PM PDT

  •  Faced with a choice between two evils, Mae West (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    native, Bisbonian

    selected the one she hadn't tried before.

    I am not that adventurous.

    Rejecting evil is my choice.

    A rightwing Democrat is capable of far more evil than the lunatic rightwing Republicans.

    The proof is Dick  Nixon who ended the Cold War, started a guaranteed annual income, the EPA, the War on Cancer and then got himself thrown of office.

    Skipping the clownish Ford interregnum in which Ford passed out WIN (Whip Inflation Now) buttons to fight inflation, Jimmy Carter began the effort to remake Democratic liberals into winger progressives and the Democratic Party into a subsidiary of the Republican Party.

    I vote for liberals and the hell with the crooked liars.

    Best,  Terry

    •  So you think Romney as the untried evil (0+ / 0-)

      is a better choice than the President?  And you think a lunatic right wing leader is a better choice than the President?  Or maybe you think the President is a right wing Democrat. Maybe this is snark and I'm not clever enough to understand you but you know that we DO know about the positions of each candidate so there is no question what you get with Romney.

      Btw:  do you really think Nixon ended the cold war?

      “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

      by stellaluna on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:03:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Try reading what is written rather than reading (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        for 6 too, Bisbonian

        between the lines.  Works wonders for understanding.

        So you think Romney as the untried evil is a better choice than the President?
        Mae West chose the evil she had not experienced.

        I am not Mae West.  I am not dead.  I don't like evils at all and won't vote for them.

        Is Obama capable of greater evil than the human corkscrew?

        Probably.  Corkscrews are only good for opening wine bottles and Romney presumably doesn't drink.

        If you choose between evils, that is your that is your business.

        Shame on you. :-)

        Best,  Terry

        •  So you think they are both evil and choose (0+ / 0-)

          another path. What is the other choice?

          “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

          by stellaluna on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:42:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Voting for a liberal of course. n/t (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            for 6 too, Bisbonian
            •  Maybe I'm obtuse but it doesn't seem that simple (0+ / 0-)

              to me. Which liberal is running anything other than a vanity campaign?  I'm willing to set aside party lines or whatever it is that you think causes people to vote as they do.  But really who could I vote for that make my vote a part of the participatory governing structure rather than a self-aggrandizing vote that does nothing except make me feel that I had somehow (and deliberately meaninglessly) protested something?

              “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

              by stellaluna on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 09:50:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  The Other Choice is Good (0+ / 0-)

            The evil I speak of is not men but false doctrine.

            Comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted does not seem wise to me - nor notably moral.  Along with everything else, it is terrible economics.

            Best, Terry

    •  Um...what? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kalmoth, Ahianne
      The proof is Dick  Nixon who ended the Cold War
      Jimmy Carter began the effort to remake Democratic liberals into winger progressives and the Democratic Party into a subsidiary of the Republican Party
      .

      I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with the "winger progressives" comment. If anything, Carter's reelection failure and the subsequent Republican renewal should be enough to get any committed liberal to support Obama. Those who don't learn from history...

      All the original handles were taken.

      by liberaldeminpittsburgh on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:06:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Winger Progessives (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        for 6 too, Bisbonian
        I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with the "winger progressives"
        When Hillary Clinton was asked during the presidential debates if she was a liberal, she answered that she preferred calling herself a progressive.  This is the same lady that said corporations were just people.  Progressives have historically been to the left of liberals and the Progressive parties that elect local candidates yet are to this day to the left of liberals.

        Carter abandoned the traditional Democratic Party with his attacks on government and rejection of Keynesian economics.  All of his successors embraced Carter's economic lean and divorce from the traditional Democratic base.

        Obama's Hoovernomics is Clinton's and Carter's and, for that matter, Reaqan's and the two Bushes.

        How are you enjoying it?

        Best,  Terry

        •  My point about Carter (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ahianne

          was not that he was an especially good president, or even that progressives didn't have good reason to be unhappy with him in 1980. But look what happened when progressives turned on him: he lost reelection to an arch-conservative who introduced us to supply-side economics and welfare queens.

          Obama, imo, is a better and more effective president than Carter. I believe he deserves a second term on his own merits, but I also fear that Romney could be even more destructive than Reagan in the White House. This just isn't a tough call for me.

          All the original handles were taken.

          by liberaldeminpittsburgh on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 09:05:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Look (0+ / 0-)
            look what happened when progressives turned on [Carter]
            I "turned" on Carter before he was elected the first time because he was an archconservative promoting Hoovernomics as the new religion and we still have that old-time religion doing dirt to us.

            Best, Terry

  •  The evils Mae West was facing (0+ / 0-)

    were  probably a lot more fun than what's in store for us if Romney gets elected. If Obama is a slap in the face, Romney is a bullet to the gut. Take your pick.

    "Here's another nice mess you've gotten me into." - Oliver Hardy

    by native on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 06:51:20 PM PDT

  •  What exactly do you mean by this: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ChicDemago, kalmoth, sviscusi
    Obama still has strong support in the African-American community, despite the valid criticisms that Tavis Smiley and DSA National Chair Cornel West make of his silence on the inner city poor or the mass incarceration of Black and Latino youth.
    You mentioned the
    mass constituencies of the Left
    but cited only African Americans. I really don't mind you using the two stooges to validate whatever point you wish to make  - after all, they are there to be used so why not use them - but I must confess that I am rather baffled by the sentence.
    Since I don't want to attribute vile motives to you, I am giving you the chance to clarify.
    Thank you.
    •  Reply (0+ / 0-)

      Well. I can't speak for Joe Schwartz. But, I will try to respond.
      Mass constituencies of the left would include labor, Latinos, feminists (not all women), a significant part of the LGTB community (not all), environmentalists, and more.
      Most of these constituencies have had severe disappointments.
      Several are listed in the essay.  Labor did not get the labor law reform, Latinos did not get immigration reform, women got the Lilly Ledbetter act, etc.
      Smiley and West.  They have made significant criticism of Obama for lack of attention to poverty.  They completed a poverty tour and recently published a book on poverty.  You' can hear their excellent news coverage on NPR.  But, with all their criticism, they still come out saying we should vote for Obama, because Romney is much worse.
      There are quite a few criticisms of Obama for his economic policies.  See the prior post ( or 2) with the review of the Kutner book - which I was trashed for.  And, some of the shortcomings were caused by Republican intransigence.
      Thanks for not assuming vile motives .  There is simply a lot to criticize.  I worked endlessly for Obama in 2008 and gave generously.  This time I will certainly vote for him.
      BTW.  Last time I had committed to Obama by Dec. and worked and contributed.  This time I am still struggling with how much to work for him.  Clearly I will vote for him.
      I hope that this responds to your question.

  •  you surely mean "tradgic?" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ChicDemago

  •  Perhaps using a manual (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ahianne, Lorikeet

    of style would strengthen your post. An introduction, conclusion, or analysis in your own words might clarify why you have chosen to post and re-title"The 2012 Election: Tragic Dilemmas, Left Possibilities." While I do not agree with all of the statements Joseph Schwartz makes in his article, I am confused by your editing of the original text. You do place the author's name before and after your post. But then you remove and replace select words from the original text without letting your readers know you have done so. For example, you use "we" and "our" when the respective words in the original text are "DSA" and "DSA's." Mr. Schwartz ends his essay with

    Though the presidential election presents DSAers
    with a difficult choice, we can deepen our commitment
    to building a multi-racial, labor-based, grassroots
    progressive coalition that can influence state power
    and turn back the austerity politics of the center-Right
    in both major parties. If we do that, we may eventually
    achieve sufficient strength that we can vote for
    what we want, rather than having to vote against what
    we fear.
    The changes you make to the words in the original without adhering to coherent citation and writing guidelines make your post confusing. Readers might understandably think the "we" you use refers to "we Democrats" when in fact Mr. Schwartz is referring to "DSAers." Style manuals will teach you how to use parentheses and brackets where appropriate so that your readers will readily see where you have taken it upon yourself to change the original text. Ellipses might also be useful (and promote a sense of academic integrity) in those few cases where you omit sentences from the original (such as Schwartz's encouragement to support Conyers of Michigan and Sanders of Vermont).
    •  Correct (0+ / 0-)

      Yes, I made the changes you mentioned.  They were suggested by Joe Schwartz.  So, it remains his piece.

      We wanted to present a position. Rather than re-write a position we used Joe's piece but did not limit it to DSA activists.
      The idea was to address a liberal constituency like Daily Kos readers.

      So, I (duane campbell) cut out the specific references to DSA activists.
      I assume that this responds to your criticism.

  •  I am an idiot (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sviscusi

    My comment on dcampbell’s post insulted my fellow Kossacks twice, and I have to apologize for it.  What I intended was to point out the dog whistles within the Repub/Teabagger talking points when they leave their sentences unfinished.  They want to take back the country, but from whom?  Of course it’s the blacks, the immigrants, the gays, and the atheists.  I did not aim it at liberals who have problems with President Obama (including myself), and I thought my track record at DKos would have made that clear.  Sadly, it didn’t work out that way.

    In retrospect, I should have, as suggested by commenters, added a snark tag, and I should not have gotten angry because I was misunderstood.  If most readers had problems with my comment, then it’s on me.  This is the second painful lesson I have learned here, the first one being don’t blog while drunk, and the second, don’t blog when pissed off at something else.  The comment was made in the afternoon, and my response to respondents was made in the evening after I returned from a long, contentious political meeting.  Again, my apologies, and a promise it won’t happen again.

    The last sound on earth will be the squawk of an optimist.

    by CT yanqui on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:16:33 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site