Can a big tent stand without any tent poles?


7 comments posted
I'm almost totally with you

You know what? I am so totally with you almost. Just a few minor quibbles that show how much we are in this together.

I take the Gene Debbs view. When you don't have all of your rights, then neither do I. So it isn't about women's rights or gay rights, it's civil rights and I don't have them when you don't either. That's my first minor quibble.

The second is that you shouldn't think that a man couldn't be as intrusively abused as a woman if the right to privacy gets overturned. What is military conscription if not a violation of privacy and forcing a person to put one's life on the line, often for reasons with which he or she doesn't agree or doesn't understand? So it's a civil rights issue and I am with you in supporting ALL of us in keeping our rights.

Other than that, well said. Also, I'm getting some lousy stuff from Kos on these civil rights issues and such lately. I get the feeling there's this whole "We're insiders now and have to pick and choose your fights for you little people" thing going on lately.

G. D. Frogsdong's picture
Posted by G. D. Frogsdong (not verified) on 20 September 2005 - 12:33pm
almost totally seems pretty much there

I agree, it is about civil rights ... and human rights. I speak here in terms of the various groups because that's what we have, an amalgam of disenfranchised people who do not have equal rights, do not have equal protection, do not have the same liberty as others.

And you're right about conscription. The thing is, that's a social distinction that may fall away. In fact, it's one of the things holding the fatcats back from reintroducing the draft -- because it almost certainly would have to include women, which goes against the whole barefoot-and-pregnant-in-the-kitchen agenda. Draft women to shoot and kill for country? Why we might get an idea that we actually should have a say in this country!

I think you're right about Kos. What they don't see is that they're marginalizing themselves. You can't scold the electorate into not believing what they believe and voting their interests as they see it.

Thanks for the comment.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 20 September 2005 - 2:47pm
I was just being nit-picky

Yeah, we're one the same page. I am just nit-picky about nuance. That's why I could never win a presidential election. (You knew there had to be some reason.)

As for Kos, nce you're knocking down a couple of hundred hits a day you aren't going to be marginalized. The danger isn't marginalization for him but him becoming out of touch with us. Maybe he doesn't see that as danger, but we are the real grassroots of blogtopia and politics, these days. The small, at least in my case, blogger is the real grassroots blogger. We may be small, but we are many. A million mice can shove an elephant around.

G. D. Frogsdong's picture
Posted by G. D. Frogsdong (not verified) on 20 September 2005 - 4:18pm
The problem when outsiders become insiders that the new insiders start to value being insiders and work to hang on to that status. What I see are indications that this is what's happening to some of the alpha males in progressive blogtopia. Last week several of us bloggers had a conference call with some DNC folks, and aside from Ted Kennedy's speech, the rest was not a conference but an echo chamber while the alpha boys told us what to say, while complimenting each other on how smart they are. We actual netroots bloggers who aren't insiders were not deemed important enough to hear from.

And thus the same old internecine politics emerge all over again.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 20 September 2005 - 4:38pm
The minute a Democrat tells me not to stand up

for my civil rights - and yes, control of my body is a civil right - he has ceased to be a Democrat. I don't care what he thinks if he's working against me. This is my body, and no one is going to tell me that my uterus is a "pet issue."

The idea of a Democrat not standing up for what is right, every time, is absurd - that's why we aren't winning elections in a landslide. We need to be absolutely clear on what we stand for, and we can't back down. There's no room to waffle where the public is concerned. They want strong leadership and that means standing up to all outside pressure and saying "This is WRONG and it has to stop!" "This is RIGHT and I will die to support it!" Nuance is bullshit in politics. If you can "negotiate" a position, then you don't have a position.

Support the Women's Autonomy and Sexual Sovereignty Movements

Morgaine Swann's picture
Posted by Morgaine Swann on 20 September 2005 - 8:52pm
This discussion strikes to

This discussion strikes to the heart of my problem with a 2 party system - it is not democracy. When an individual takes a stance that differs vastly from the parties platform he is still accepted as a party member because he agrees on so many other issues. Bullshit, while it is politicaly expedient - even neccasary to ally with such a person on issues where there is common cause it is wrong to claim absolute kinship with such a person. A party making common cause with another on issues of common interest is democracy - a person being welcomed into a party on the other hand finds their views validated in whole.

Niether side of the republicratic fence is immune. The republicans are just as fragmented as the democrats. When you lump everyone into one of 2 categories neither is going to function as a well oiled machine, intead we get stuck with a seemingly endless pendulum swinging inexorably to the right then the left never slowing to find some common ground in the center - the average - where most Americans actualy reside.

DuWayne's picture
Posted by DuWayne (not verified) on 21 September 2005 - 10:29am
Good point

The problem, as I see it, however, is that we have people trying to assert the view that we the voters are wrong and we should get a clue from the politicians. I believe it's the other way around.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 21 September 2005 - 10:39am