Lately I've been thinking of why I get such a bad taste in response to so many debates I witness here on dailykos, and I think I've finally put my finger on it. I feel as if too many kossaks (and all too often the democratic party) are all too willing to throw others under the bus while still asking for their support and votes. Follow me below the fold to see what I mean.
In discussions about democratic economic policy, climate policy, 4th amendment rights and the NSA domestic surveillance revelations, the prosecution of bankers and war crimes, and so on, I repeatedly hear people say things like the following:
1) "That just isn't high on my list of priorities because the really important thing is the assault on women's reproductive rights."
2) "That just isn't high on my list of priorities because the really important problem is racial inequality."
3) "This is an election year and just not the time to talk about these things."
4) "The republicans are worse, talking about these things depresses voter turnout, so you should remain silent on these things and support us."
I think it's arguments such as these that basically depress voter turnout. What you're saying is that people should just not talk about the issues that are most important to them, that the party won't support them, and that people should just shut up and give the party their votes and money. You're throwing these people under the bus, telling them that they and their issues don't matter.
It's a really weird logic. People who make arguments like this seem to believe that politics is a zero sum game. The thought process seems to be that if one person is focused on the ravages of contemporary capitalism and the policy behind it, we can't also be passionate about reproductive rights, racial equality, elections, and all the rest. It's as if people think it's an either/or, rather than a both/and. People also seem to think that if someone is critical to inaction of the party on some issue, this somehow depresses voter turnout. Why isn't it just the opposite? Why doesn't honest and frank discussion enhance voter turn-out by compelling the party to address these issues and by reassuring potential voters that their being heard and therefore represented?
The more I turn it over in my mind, I just can't see how these rhetorical strategies can possibly contribute to the success and flourishing of the democratic party. You're basically telling people that the party doesn't represent them and doesn't even care to hear about the issues that are important to them. If the party doesn't represent these people, why should they give their votes and money to the party? These days I often hear the Biblical words "they know not what they do" when I reflect on these types of arguments. People who make these sorts of arguments believe they are protecting the party and helping it. They think they're doing good. But if you pause and think it through, it's pretty clear this does more damage than good. Dude, don't throw people under the bus. That's just not cool, nor pragmatic.