This is to address what appears to be an ongoing challenge to the Democratic Party, in real life as well as on this site. For too long we have been called collectivistic, or even communists or socialists. There are those that would argue that we expect everyone to conform like lockstep Nazis to the same drum. Some even leave with this deceptive state of mind. They could not be farther from the truth.
Our actions alone should speak volumes against these attacks. Just the fact that we accept Joe Lieberman alone should be enough. Republicans, after getting their literal butts kicked, have threatened to weed out those in their party who do not tow a certain line; while we accept everybody and everything. Why is it a scandal to be gay in the Republican Party; but an accepted way of life within the Democratic Party?
We are the party of ideas; not ideologies. We have conservatives, liberals, and moderates under the same umbrella; and we listen to them all. How can we do this? Simple. By following the basic assertion that each of us as individuals have the right to judge our own behavior, thoughts, and emotions; and take responsibility for their initiation and consequences. We do not have to offer any reasons or excuses to justify our behavior. We have the right to make mistakes, and accept responsibility for them. The debates of what is too conservative or too liberal is out-dated; and labels are only hindrances to finding real solutions to real problems. Ideologies are only governments' attempts to manipulate, and legislate, human behavior; which they have no business doing in the first place.
In hindsight, it is the Republicans themselves that have enhanced the erosion of our civil liberties in the name of national security. It is the Republicans who seem to want Americans to conform. Individualism is a major tenet of the Democratic Party; which is why it is all-inclusive in its numbers. If the last election is any indication; it is this lesson that the Republicans are going to have to learn to rejuvenate themselves.
With this in mind, I do heartily ask independants to consider their choices. I completely respect those who choose to remain independant; but at least do not offer the talking point justification that the Democrats are too collectivistic. That is false on so many levels; and our record will prove as such.
Thank you!
Arch.
|
|
| |
|
|
If you mean they are the same in terms of hoarding power, being big-tent parties with no true guiding light, being under the thumb of corporations and special interests, then yes, they seem identical. Realistically, though, how many progressive Republicans are out there right now? How many Republicans are willing to stand up and say taxation is a viable means to fix our economic woes? You have Libertarians who are socially liberal, at least tending to the live-and-let-live premise, and some of them, like Ron Paul, have gone Republican because they realize the two-party reality will stay for at least the short term. By and large though, it's an incredibly general term, but liberals tend to be Democrat, and conservatives tend to be Republican, and there are differences between the two as a result.
Eh ... the Democrats and Republicans are nearly identical. I can hardly tell them apart any longer.
Consider the source, but I don't think the tag of socialist should be something the Dems shy away from. In Europe, you have Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists, either/or. They're generally accepted as one and the same. The general precepts you find in democratic socialism, you already find in the Dems' platform. When Hitler was growing up in Austria around the turn of the 20th century, he professed his distaste for the Social Democrats. When he rose to power, and the communists were also seeking a foothold in the Wiemar Republic, Social Democrats were actively fighting both communists and facsists. While there is something for everybody in the socialist agenda, it is primarily a populist movement, a workers' movement, and since the New Deal, we see the Dems much closer in alignment with middle-and-working-class ethics and unions than the Republicans. Socialists do not make distinctions of race, gender, orientation, all those things, and all those things you see Dems fighting for more than Reps. Dems talk frankly about the reality of taxes, Reps cry bloody murder. I realize the word socialism has become a four-letter word in this country, and Dems have also been leery of being called liberal at times as well. But so long as they allow Reps to call the shots in terms of nomenclature, as long as Reps continue to beat Dems to the punch in terms of naming things, Dems will always be on the defensive. Being a socialist is nothing to be ashamed about, in fact, it should be embraced.
Bravo, Arch. Great blog post.
Hawk, as an American, I am proud of my right to say that I do not care what you think.
LOL!
A pro gun dem is definitly a step in the right direction........
That's true. He's been a great diplomat. Some countries refuse to talk with anyone but him. And, he's also one of those rare pro-gun democrats.
He's been great for a lot of reasons. The one thing that not just made me a Richardson supporter, but a real fan, is, when North Korea was talking about jumpstarting its nuclear program in 2002, they sent envoys, not to Washington, but to Santa Fe!
Yeah. He's been great for the NM economy.
lol talk about partisan the democrats have done the almost exact thing as the republicans, including the patriot act
{GASP} A scandal involving a Democrat!!!!! Shocker!!!!!!!!!!
Well, his slot will just be filled by another crooked politician that has not been caught yet.
While that saddens me in that I believe Gov. Richardson would have been a fine addition to any president's cabinet, I am glad to see him taking responsibility and stepping away from such consideration. As we watch one governor in Illinois being led away, kicking and screaming, I appreciate Richardson's integrity in owning up to a potential conflict of interest. Every politician should take notes.
News for anyone who missed it: my governor, Bill Richardson, has withdrawn his name from the commerce secretary position. Seems there is an inverstigation as to whether he showed favortism to a company that gave him a large political contribution.
See, here's the problem I have. In order to express your individualism, you have to use means provided to you by the state, collectively, or by corporations, collectively. There is not a single aspect of one's basic life that does not require the work of literally thousands of other people around the world. From the time you wake and rise from your bed (mattress made in Illinois and frame in California, a few dozen workers) and turn off the alarm clock (made in Japan, a couple more workers), to the coffee you drink (beans grown in Columbia, shipped to the United States, ground and packaged in Washington State, shipped by truck to your supermarket and stocked by the time you select it, how many hundreds of workers that entails), to driving your car to work and back (steel produced in Pennsylvania, car assembled in Michigan, gas originally in the form of petroleum sucked from the ground in Qatar and shipped to refineries in Louisiana and transported by pipeline to a distributor in your state and further trucked to your local gas station, the road paved by contractors paid by your municipality, literally thousands of workers getting you to where you need to go), many people make it possible for you to function. I don't need to read that out of a book, I can just look around and think this through. No man is an island, and to talk in empty terms about collectivism and individualism means nothing if left in the ether. The bottom line is, not just to keep an economy going, but to be able to function as human beings beyond the hunter-gatherer level, we need each other.
there are two definitions of Collectivism and Individualism, both yo will find to be accurate. Your problem is that yor national party has promoted the subjagation of the individual thru social programs. will the National GOP has done the same under the guise of national security. both are erroding our rights and you are not smart enough to see it.
"Individualism regards man -- every man -- as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful co-existence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights -- and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members." -- Ayn Rand
"INDIVIDUALISM: The term 'individualism' has a great variety of meanings in social and political philosophy. There are at least three types that can be distinguished: (1) ontological individualism, (2) methodological individualism, and (3) moral or political individualism. Ontological individualism is the doctrine that social reality consists, ultimately, only of persons who choose and act. Collectives, such as a social class, state, or a group, cannot act so they are not considered to have a reality independent of the actions of persons. Methodological individualists hold that the only genuinely scientific propositions in social science are those that can be reduced to the actions, dispositions, and decisions of individuals. Political or moral individualism is the theory that individuals should be left, as far as possible, to determine their own futures in economic and moral matters. Key thinkers include Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick, John Locke, and Herbert Spencer." -- Stephen Grabill and Gregory M. A. Gronbacher
"Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group -- whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called 'the common good'." -- Ayn Rand
"COLLECTIVISM: Collectivism is defined as the theory and practice that makes some sort of group rather than the individual the fundamental unit of political, social, and economic concern. In theory, collectivists insist that the claims of groups, associations, or the state must normally supersede the claims of individuals." -- Stephen Grabill and Gregory M. A. Gronbacher
** This comment was deleted by Progress due to inappropriated content **
|
|
<< Home