We previously discussed the disconnect between Democratic leaders and liberal voters in the increasing complaints of leaders like Vice President Biden over Democratic “lethargy.” Democrats in Washington once again seemed shocked that voters are not eager to fight for their retention. Now, Biden has added the helpful advice to Democratic voters to “stop whining” about things that they did not get in Washington and to “buck up.”
The “buck up” comment was meant as an improvement over the “whining” comment. It turned out that “whining” was not greeted by voters as an improvement over “lethargy.”
Here is the latest statement:
“And so those who don’t get — didn’t get everything they wanted, it’s time to just buck up here, understand that we can make things better, continue to move forward and — but not yield the playing field to those folks who are against everything that we stand for in terms of the initiatives we put forward.”
By “everything [we] wanted,” I assume Biden is including the fulfillment of our treaty obligations to investigate and prosecute war crimes such as torture — which the Administration blocked.
I assume it includes removing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which the Administration is trying to preserve by asking a court not to impose a national injunction freezing the policy.
I assume it includes allowing dozens of privacy lawsuits to go forward against companies, which the Administration blocked despite evidence of unlawful surveillance by the Bush Administration.
I assume it includes allowing torture victims to seek review in federal court, which the Administration has successfully blocked.
I assume it includes protecting pristine areas along the East Coast from drilling, which the Administration has fought to open up for development even after the BP accident.
I assume it includes reducing the faith-based programs of the Bush Administration which raised concerns over the separation of church and state, which Obama expanded.
Well, it includes a lot of things that democratic and independent voters wanted. What they got was a Democratic majority saw power as the end to itself rather than the means to fight for principle. For civil libertarians, “those folks who are against everything that we stand” include the Obama Administration which has been a perfect nightmare in the adoption and expansion of Bush policies.
Yet, Biden wants civil libertarians, environmentalists, and liberals to stop whining and buck up. The Administration made a cynical calculation that liberals and civil libertarians and environmentalists have no where to go and that they have to support the Democrats regardless of these obnoxious policies. Now, they are simply shocked that voters are not enthusiastic about their continuing in power.
The Democratic leadership has conveyed that the only principle that they are committed to is their retention of power. All other principles — torture, the environment, privacy, free speech — are immaterial to that one overriding goal. They just do not understand why everyone does not see it that way.
Well, I am one of those whining, lethargic voters and I cannot get myself to buck up to support leaders who turned their back on such core values. Perhaps if enough Democrats are replaced, the party may rediscover the benefit of being principled and standing for something other than their own insular interests. They need to actually represent something other than “we are not as bad as those guys.” The problem for voters is that, by retaining these leaders, we reaffirm that they cynical calculation by the White House was correct. There is no reason why Democrats should fulfill their commitments in these areas if voters do not hold them accountable. I know some on this blog may disagree, but I personally think I will stick with the whining for now.
Source: Real Clear Politics
Elaine,
You should start saying “RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!” too – and if some of the stories on this blog are any indication, you’ll need a taser as well… 😉
Tony C.,
And why is it that you respond to comments I address to other posters? And just look at your last response to me–pretty wordy, I’d say. I think maybe YOU’RE talking less and less about the subject of this thread.
Evidently, your “rhetorical shorthand” hasn’t been working for you too well. Maybe you should come up with a new strategy. I assume you know what they say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Just using a little of my own sarcasm and “rhetorical shorthand.”
*****
You wote: “As to whether or not it should be used: If you are not protecting yourself, why do you assume others either want or need your protection and policing of the space?”
Protecting myself from what? The verbal slings and arrows of Tony C.? I’m policing this space? That’s news to me. I better git me a uniform and a badge!
Bdaman,
It might have been a good zinger… if it was even remotely accurate.
Tony C said:
Tony,
In case it wasn’t clear in my previous posts, I disagree with the professor (and you), but I’m having a debate with you and I think that both the strategy you advocate and the tactics you use to do it are juvenile and counterproductive. I haven’t said anything about the Professor’s intent – only that his and your actions have justified the respective responses you have gotten. I believe that what you and the professor have suggested is bad electoral strategy, but you alone are responsible for the tactics you’ve used in your advocacy of that strategy. Now, what exactly am I denying for ideological reasons?
Tony C said:
You forgot your naivety due to your polarized view of politics (in addition to your anger). And I don’t really care why you are endorsing a strategy that has little to no chance of working – I just wont let advocacy of such a disastrous (in my opinion) strategy go unanswered. You’re the one who seems to feel that he knows the motivations of everyone else – I just assume that everyone acts in their own self-interest as they see it. Ultimately, I’m more concerned with the results of actions rather than the motivations behind them.
If Professor Turley were making the arguments that you were, he would certainly be doing it with more respect for his opponents than you have shown. Do you really have trouble understanding why this would have resulted in his being treated with more respect by people who disagreed with him? If you didn’t want to reap the whirlwind, you shouldn’t have sown the wind…
Ah… so you have two binary criteria rather than just one – that’s so much better! I am suggesting that there is an infinite range with which to quantify a politician’s characteristics and that our analysis loses the ability to discern important nuances when we restrict ourselves to just two or four choices (as you seem wont to do).
It’s impossible to know what could have happened, but it seems likely that the tipping point for achieving a public option wasn’t too far away and yet you have no problem indicting all of the Democrats with ensuring that it didn’t happen. This is exactly what I mean when I talk about your polarized view being unable to discern nuance. Getting a bill passed in the Senate is a tough needle to thread – more so now with the unprecedented use of the filibuster (while the Democrats have been slow to adapt to the changed reality we shouldn’t forget that it is the Republicans who have clearly put the good of their party above the good of the country). How many more progressive Senators would have been required in order for it to have passed? Are we more or less likely to get past that threshold in the future if we send the message that you suggest and help elect more Republicans? (many of whom are teabagger wingnuts). Your analysis is flawed (in my opinion) because it fails to recognize the complexity and nuance in both the motivations and effects of the actions of politicians in an effort to force the politicians to conform with your polarized worldview.
By the way, it seems like you are talking more and more about me and less and less about the merits of your argument – why is that?
@Elaine: “What would be your purpose in ridiculing or insulting the intelligence/logic of posters who disagree with you? No harm was intended? Really?”
Yes, really. The “purpose” is to use some hyperbolic exaggeration as an intensifier to get you to examine your logic more closely. The same is true of the sarcasm I used in responding to you; the purpose was not to put “words in your mouth,” the purpose was to point out the ridiculous consequence of the action you proposed.
No real insult to your ability to reason was proposed, if I *really* thought you were mentally challenged or emotionally fragile and would get your feelings hurt, I wouldn’t use those tactics (I would refrain from engaging at all).
If your feelings were not hurt, then see them as they were intended: Rhetorical shorthand that shouldn’t offend anybody unless they take it seriously. As to whether or not it should be used: If you are not protecting yourself, why do you assume others either want or need your protection and policing of the space?
This is why I say you are a false debater; that isn’t logic, that is ideological denial.
Zing
@Slart: So Dr. Turley wrote a post saying effectively “This is what I am going to do, and if enough people do it, maybe it will work.”
You claim that is not advocating for what HE INTENDS TO DO. You are hilarious, just keep twisting into that pretzel shape you need to justify that claim, no matter how ludicrous it is on the face of it. This is why I say you are a false debater; that isn’t logic, that is ideological denial.
Swarthmore mom: “we are talking about the democratic turnout in 2010 not 2012. Obama is not on the ballot. I am glad you are helping Tony. If the Professor was advocating suppressing the democratic vote, I would certainly not be on his blog but somehow I don’t think that is the case.”
Just like J.T., I’m not talking about suppressing any votes and I’m not helping Tony. I’m simply pointing out the importance of engaging “a reason determining the will by means of apriori grounds.”
Otherwise, you tend to sacrifice your principles for more immediate goals and then your conscience tends to gnaw at you; like that ‘tell-tale heart’ did to Kevin.
Tony C said:
As you have repeatedly pointed out, the merits of your (or anyone else’s) arguments are not effected by the degree to which the professor agrees or disagrees with them. I disagree with the argument the professor made (inasmuch as it advocated refusing to vote for Democrats), but I’m having a debate with you, not him. Furthermore, you are the one who seems to have no respect for any intellect but your own. You are perfectly within your rights to behave in this way, but if you think that it will help you persuade anyone or that you don’t deserve the ‘blowback’ you have gotten then that is just another example of your naivety. Also, I have never implied that you are a ‘traitor’ to the progressive cause – only that you are either a conservative shill or a counter-productive progressive (and you’re a bit of a cry-baby, too…). This is based on my belief that the strategy that you are advocating is antithetical to achieving progressive goals.
My definition of a straw man is an attempt to misrepresent an argument in order to make it more vulnerable to attack. In this case, you have misrepresented me as vilifying you as a traitor as part of your continuing attempt to align yourself with the professor in order to make the argument that the professor deserves the abuse you earned with your condescension and denigration merely because your position is similar to what he wrote. I’m not ducking your arguments or the professor’s arguments – the professor hasn’t been explicitly advocating withholding votes from Democratic incumbents on Nov. 2nd and I’ve explained why I think that the effects of your strategy run counter to forwarding progressive aims and achieving progressive goals – namely that historical evidence suggests that, in return for the pain and suffering you admit your strategy will cause, the effect will be to move Democrats further to the right rather than to the left as well as a weakening of the progressives in Congress.
Tony C.,
You didn’t hurt my feelings. I don’t have thin skin. I just happen to think that using such tactics is an inappropriate way to try to win an argument. What would be your purpose in ridiculing or insulting the intelligence/logic of posters who disagree with you? No harm was intended? Really? I’m having a hard time believing that. If no harm was truly intended, I’d say–no matter how smart you may be–you have a big blindspot when it comes to understanding other people and how to conduct a constructive discussion/debate on a subject with those who have different opinions from yours.
@Slart: Right, the guy that said this:
“Perhaps if enough Democrats are replaced, the party may rediscover the benefit of being principled and standing for something other than their own insular interests. They need to actually represent something other than ‘we are not as bad as those guys.'”
That poor guy just has a naive, polarized world view, to think that the punishment of enough Democrats losing office might actually work.
Face it, that strategy is so disastrously flawed, he must be either misrepresenting his goals to push a strategy he knows is bad for progressive ends or he is endorsing a strategy that has little to no chance of working due to his anger at the Democratic party.
(Again, I am not invoking his authority; I am pointing out your hypocrisy at repeatedly and constantly leveling those charges at me and never agreeing they would apply equally well to Dr. Turley.)
Speaking of straw men: I have NOT characterized politicians as devils or angels; I characterize them as either lying for political gain, financially corrupt, both, or not. I have stated before I don’t care about small lies, I care about pollicy hypocrisy; like, for example, pretending to desperately want a public option while secretly working to prevent it from happening; as Harry Reid and other Democrats in the Senate did. They could have passed it in reconciliation with 50 votes. It didn’t pass, because the Senators that claimed to want it made sure that didn’t happen.
Gerty
30%er
Jacob Marley
Tony,
People are reacting not just to your arguments, but to all of your comments. Those of us who feel that your strategy is disastrously flawed suspect that you are either misrepresenting your goals to push a strategy that you know is bad for progressive ends or (more likely, in my opinion) you are endorsing a strategy that has little to no chance of working due to your anger at the Democratic party for what you see as it’s betrayal and the naivety of your polarized worldview. What I object to in your reasoning is your suggestion to use the vote as ‘punishment’ (even as you note that most politicians get high-paying lobbyist jobs after they leave office – hardly a fate worse than death…) and the implication that politicians are either corrupt or pure – frankly there are no angels or devils in politics, just men and women doing what they see as ‘best’ by their own criteria (some more honorable than others and most, if not all, influenced by the need to raise money for re-election). The cartoon super-villany you seem to ascribe to all politicians at the slightest hint of corruption is indicative (to me) of a dangerous lack of reality in your evaluation of the political landscape. I don’t know about anyone else, but I believe that such an unrealistic simplifying assumption skews your whole analysis to the point where it loses any insight it may have given you about the real situation.
And feel free to keep trying to portray me as Don Quixote (and anyone who disagrees with you as intellectually inferior) – our arguments stand just fine on their own merits…
@SM: I thought we agreed to disagree; I even disregarded your mischaracterization of me re: Rove. Are we back on?
@Elaine: “I also believe we shouldn’t be questioning and insulting the intelligence of posters who disagree with us–which is something you have done.”
Alright Elaine, if I have hurt your feelings I apologize for that, no harm was intended.
Bob, Es. Need to leave, but we are talking about the democratic turnout in 2010 not 2012. Obama is not on the ballot. I am glad you are helping Tony. If the Professor was advocating suppressing the democratic vote, I would certainly not be on his blog but somehow I don’t think that is the case.
Swarthmore mom: “Tony C and Bob You guys are constantly bringing up Obama and Prof Turley. Obama is not on the ballot as we keep pointing out to you. We are talking about defending some decent democrats from the tea party.”
I was simply agreeing with J.T. in this particular post while pointing out how he’s a man of principle.
How is that a problem?
Tony C.,
“It does not mean we should start attacking each other as liars, trolls, secret agents, egotistical maniacs or otherwise nefarious evil-doers.”
I also believe we shouldn’t be questioning and insulting the intelligence of posters who disagree with us–which is something you have done.
Tony C Go read Mike Spindell’s posts that were directed toward you. No one gets you better than he.
@Elaine: “others who disagree with Tony are just poor benighted souls wandering around in a morass of our own intellectual incompetence.”
I certainly do not think of you that way; for that attitude look to the Slart that feels he must abandon his self-imposed exile to ride to your rescue. Fear not, citizens! Your knight is here!
What I think if you disagree with me is that you are wrong; but that is perfectly equitable because *you* think *I* am wrong. Swarthmore is right on this point; if we cannot convince each other then we are obviously starting from different foundational assumptions that we each hold to be self-evidently true, and if we don’t have the time or patience to sort *those* out we have to give up and disagree. It does not mean we should start attacking each other as liars, trolls, secret agents, egotistical maniacs or otherwise nefarious evil-doers.