how's about cheering the good and decrying the bad, in turn?
That seems the only sensible thing to do. "While climbing a tall mountain, one must look back to take heart in how far we've come, and one must look forward to remember how far we have to go."
What seems incorrect IMHO is the insistence that everyone must have the same set of priorities, that everyone must agree -- and agree out loud, in public -- which issues are more important than which other issue and in what manner. Not to mention that everyone has slightly different takes on what each issue is. Yeah, if conservatives have been successful recently, it's because they've kept their coalition together and avoided infighting. (Which must have an interesting history, because there is a concept of "movement conservative", "everyone must be conservative in exactly the same way", that many conservative intellectuals espouse. What has kept those people under control long enough to get actual political results?)
This reminds me of a research paper I read somewhere which noted that the anti-Iraq-War coalition fell apart just after Obama got elected (as measured by the size of anti-Iraq-War demonstrations). The likely cause was that the Democratic Party was no longer funding the workers who did the work to keep the coalition together, because there was no longer any political benefit to the Party (in getting their candidates elected) of maintaining the coalition.
At the least, liberals should try to avoid sniping at other liberals who express priorities they disagree with.
no subject
That seems the only sensible thing to do. "While climbing a tall mountain, one must look back to take heart in how far we've come, and one must look forward to remember how far we have to go."
What seems incorrect IMHO is the insistence that everyone must have the same set of priorities, that everyone must agree -- and agree out loud, in public -- which issues are more important than which other issue and in what manner. Not to mention that everyone has slightly different takes on what each issue is. Yeah, if conservatives have been successful recently, it's because they've kept their coalition together and avoided infighting. (Which must have an interesting history, because there is a concept of "movement conservative", "everyone must be conservative in exactly the same way", that many conservative intellectuals espouse. What has kept those people under control long enough to get actual political results?)
This reminds me of a research paper I read somewhere which noted that the anti-Iraq-War coalition fell apart just after Obama got elected (as measured by the size of anti-Iraq-War demonstrations). The likely cause was that the Democratic Party was no longer funding the workers who did the work to keep the coalition together, because there was no longer any political benefit to the Party (in getting their candidates elected) of maintaining the coalition.
At the least, liberals should try to avoid sniping at other liberals who express priorities they disagree with.