What does matter to me is that I do not hear that above oath emanate from the wretched mouths of a President Brownback, or a President McCain, President Guiliani, President Huckabee, President Tancredo, President Gingrich, or a President Romney.
To that end, I have, on occassion, been known to advocate for unity among us. Around these parts, such a call is known as SYFPH (Shut Your F*cking Pie Hole) or STFU (Shut the F*ck Up). The reason for such calls of unity is the realization by me, and by those who agree with me, that there is far more that unites all of us than divides, that our disagreements are extremely few as compared to our disagreements with the Republicans, and finally, that the election of Democrats, in all their respective stripes (except for Lieberman, Zell Miller, and the more odios elements of the DLC), is far more preferrable than having a Republican, no matter how supposedly liberal or independent, elected.
I am practical, and pragmatic, and as such, am willing to support a candidate that agrees with me 90% of the time rather than see a candidate who agrees with me 1% of the time get elected. On the other side, the Purists, as I and others call them, reject any candidate or any elected official who does not agree with them 100%. Such Purists opposed Senator Bob Casey's candidacy, and they are now attacking Nancy Pelosi for not already impeaching Bush. Purists populate the campaigns of Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader. Thus, when I was telling people to SYFPH, it was primarily aimed at the purists.
However, I have been here as an active participant for three long years. And I have finally learned that to advocate for unity among Democrats is much like putting a cat into a box. The cat will resist you every step of the way and will scratch every single body part it can get its vile claws on. Believe me, I have the scratches to prove it. So I have given up the mantle of SYFPH, having proclaimed it dead some months ago.
In that diary, I endorse fellow Kossack Zenbowl's thoughts on the issue:
Both extremes are wrong. Some internal debate is good, but so is some internal cohesion. We don't have to be a lockstep party, but we should all be walking in the same general direction.
Sometimes, you gotta shut that pie hole, and sometimes, you gotta keep it open.
If your beef with someone is that s/he didn't support your candidate or issue of choice in 2006, or 2004, or 1984, and therefore they are terrible and never worth listening to, you need to SYFPH, because the Democratic Tent is a big one, and it has room for both Steny Hoyer and Jack Murtha.
If your issue with someone is that they are a corrupting influence on Democracy, that they undermine the party because of a multitude of poor statements (i.e. if they act like Joementum or Carville) then, by all means, OYFPH (o=open). Because calling someone to account for undermining both party and country is never a bad thing.
Really, what's missing from this debate is that people are DYING to be the loudest or the most recommended about an issue, and so what we get is a bunch of vitriol from both camps. Debate is good, to be sure, but blind arguments and biased rants are not.
I won't be proud of infighting, but I will be proud of debate. I won't be proud of finger-pointing, but I will be proud of accountability.
I still do believe that we should be unified because, in the end, we are unified, but I recognize that debate is good among us.
And just because I won't tell purists to shut up anymore, doesn't mean I won't call them out on what I perceive to be their idiocy, their lack of seeing the larger goal, their concentration on the trees rather than the forest. That will be how I participate in the upcoming 2008 Presidential primaries. I will find the one presidential candidate that inspires me the most, that I agree with the most, that I think can win. And I will debate all of the candidates' strengths and weaknesses with all of you. This debate is necessary among us because we have to chose a leader for our party, our ideals, our hopes, our principles, and our dreams.
However, in debate, in the coming competition, we must still act like the friends that, in the end, we are. Thus, when a right wing attack story smearing both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (but on the surface looked like a Hillary Clinton attack piece on Barack Obama) began circulating this week, I posted another diary, called the First Rule.
In that diary, I stated that when one candidate (or supporters of those candidates here at Daily Kos or in general) criticizes or attacks another candidate for the Democratic nomination, he or she should not use solely a right wing source in doing so. For example, if an attack piece or any negative information is posted on NewsMax, Insight, Fox News, the Washington Times, or any other like faux news site, the candidate or his or her supporters should not only not use it to attack their competitor, but that they should consider such stories or information false.
My friendly arch rival here at Daily Kos, Pyrrho, had some thoughts about that, and we agreed that this would be an interesting debate. Here are his thoughts:
I just don't take this seriously because for one, I don't use the sources listed, and if I did, I still wouldn't use [Delaware Dem's] rule as a reference, obviously, as I think DD knows is true not just in my case, so it's just his way, I now know after long association, of saying his opinion.
This is what DD thinks should be the rule.
He doesn't really expect it to be followed as an authoritative rule... though some will and that makes it like a group identifier, in the best case.
it is not serious to me and due a rebuff because it is part of the general idea about STFU.
DD the person, I can enjoy, don't know if it's reciprocal but it could be... but this STFU stuff bugs me because it's not without context.
The context are additional things like the fact that DD is a "centrist" (if you believe that's the "center", of what I'm not sure)... which is to say, slightly to the conservative side of things and opposed to "purists"... he's no nader "purist", he's practical.
The self described centrists around here all describe themselves as practical and opposed to the "purity troll".
BUT the STFU line, the "verboten sources" line, the "primary rules" line in an open conversation, THAT'S PURITY.
The anti PURITY patrol ARE THE PURISTS. It's clear as day, they ought to embrace their platonic views about what is intellectual, what types of presentation are better, about how the opposition should be shunned. That's why it bugs me.
that's why 'm drawn to a a similar niche in DD's STFU and related diaries.
My problem is how to stay creative after the points are already made... the tedium of a rut just won't do.
Pyrrho touched on a lot of issues there. As an aside, I am not a centrist, I am all over the place on issues. On some issues, yes, I am more conservative than others, but on other issues, I seek radical reform.
But Pyrrho's over-arching theme is that, to advocate that we not use right wing attack sources as ammunition against each other, somehow I am now advocating for that which I oppose....
Purity.
It is an interesting take on the whole SYFPH-Purist debate that I had not considered before. And as I promised Pyrrho, I thought about it.
Is it purist to demand that Republican and right wing sources not be used when we criticize one other over the coming months?
I can respect Pyrrho's opinion, that everything should be open, that nothing should be censured, that all is fair in war.
But I disagree that I am being purist in demanding that false attacks, false ideology, and false opinion not be used here at Daily Kos and that we not use such against our candidates. I call that being honest, not purist.
For example, if NewsMax declares with glee in one of their stories that Hillary eats babies, it would seem that Pyrrho is ok with the Edwards campaign and his supporters here at Daily Kos using that piece of libel as a campaign attack against Hillary. For in doing so, Pyrrho is perserving the open free expression of ideas, no matter if such ideas are lies.
I disagree.
So I apologize for rambling, what are your thoughts?
Comments are closed on this story.