Defectors from the DNC are the abusive husbands of the left.

The effect of the actions of people who threaten to take their vote away from the DNC is to get their way on almost everything through physical abuse of the ones they are supposed to "love". They are involved in withholding healthcare and social services from people who badly need them by knowingly taking actions designed to thwart our accomplishing or sustaining them. This is supposed to get these abused people on their side, in some sort of "make-up" scene where the abusive defectors coddle those bruised and abused, saying "see, it was all for the best".

Sick.

n/t

are talking about by you giving me a person or a group as an example.

But you see plenty of people here threatening to defect from the Democratic Party over things like how many senators voted with the challenge of the electoral votes.

See ya- been around here too long anyway.

...pretending that they don't actually have an agenda which affects millions of people in promoting things like social services and universal coverage. When you withhold your vote from the Democrats on account of single issues such as how many senators signed a challenge, you withhold these programs from people, and you are hurting all these people. This is kind-of sick and twisted because you want these people on your side - it's like being an abusive spouse.

coverage"? You must be thinking of some OTHER Democrats than most of those I see in Washington. The ones I see in Washington vote for things like NAFTA, the viscious Welfare "reform" not to mention IRW, Patriot Act, etc. etc. etc.

Seems like you missed 'em, so here you go.

http://www.audible.com

Do a search on "bush kerry" and they'll come up.

I watched them too. They do not alter my comment.

:toast:

Those who "threaten" to defect as voters from Dem Party (not the DNC -- few people here are membes of the DNC), are the abused NOT the abusers.

We rank and file Dems are the ones who take it and take it, always wishin' and hopin' that we'll be treated better, will be listened to, "some day," when things are better. We're the ones who imagine (and it IS imagination) that there's some secret plan or strategy going on that will make our lives and the life of our nation wonderful again -- and there never is. We're the ones sitting by the phone hoping our elected Dems will give a damn about us, notice we even exist. We're the ones who take blow after blow and then stay with them because, gee, we'll never be able to do any better, they're our whole life, our only hope. They ONCE upon a time loved us, they will again. Surely. Some day. Just as soon as things are better.

We rank and file are codependent, supporting other codependents (our elected Dems):

The Politics of Victimization
(Mel Gilles, who has worked for many years as an advocate for victims of domestic abuse, draws some parallels between her work and the reaction of many Democrats to the election.-- Mathew Gross)
http://mathewgross.com/blog/archives/001041.html

Watch Dan Rather apologize for not getting his facts straight, humiliated before the eyes of America, voluntarily undermining his credibility and career of over thirty years. Observe Donna Brazille squirm as she is ridiculed by Bay Buchanan, and pronounced irrelevant and nearly non-existent. Listen as Donna and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles Schumer take to the airwaves saying that they have to go back to the drawing board and learn from their mistakes and try to be better, more likable, more appealing, have a stronger message, speak to morality. Watch them awkwardly quote the bible, trying to speak the new language of America. Surf the blogs, and read the comments of dismayed, discombobulated, confused individuals trying to figure out what they did wrong. Hear the cacophony of voices, crying out, “Why did they beat me?”

-- more --

And it was discussed here -- and do be sure to see Post #105 for the most apt analogy of the whole dynamic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1395238#1395945

Edited to add post 105 instead of relying on people to look for it themselves -- part (not all) of Scarletwoman's post:

I found a profound (in my mind, anyway) response to the original "Victimization" piece in the blog comments.

It is this: thank you mel, for your analysis.

the demands for new leadership, and the disappointment (almost to the point of a sense of betrayal) in kerry, mcauliffe, carville and shrum some have described... leads me to suggest slight reframe of the abusive family dynamic.

while the abusive father role is played by the rnc/bush/rove et al. - the mother who can't or won't protect her family from the abusive father is the current dnc leadership.

if we continue to see ourselves as children in this dynamic, our only choices appear to be which parent we identify with. or we can stand up, break free and be responsible for creating our own future.

{Posted by selise at November 9, 2004 10:05 AM}

(I bolded slightly more than Scarletwoman did in her excerpt.)



One thing's for sure: you aren't healthy (and don't GET healthy) when you continue in relationships -- with ANYone or anyTHING (such as an organization) -- that aren't in some way acceptably mutual, which must include some reciprocity. Mutually and reciprocally beneficial relationships don't have to be "equally reciprocal," but there has to be enough reciprocity that it's not a case of being used and abused.

An example: I once upon a time had a couple of friends who would get on the phone with me, spend an hour or so telling me all about their lives (usually problematic) and never once even ASK about mine. I knew their whole life stories, and every detail of their current lives, and they knew virtually nothing about my past or present. I finally got it that these were NOT reciprocal relationships. I didn't need or want to talk endlessly about my life, past present and future, but for them to occupy my time without ANY expressed interest in my life made the relationship way too lopsided to be healthy.

Same with some of the jobs I've had (and I think we've all had them). There comes a time when they ask and expect so much more than they give (and often recognition and thanks are enough), that you have to wake up and realize you're being used and abused, that the relationship is no way near reciprocal, and start respecting yourself enough to either end the relationship or stand up and demand more.

Same with volunteer organizations. I was once a very active member of an activist organization that was as highly dysfunctional as any dysfunctional family I've ever heard about (that didn't actually have criminal activities or people in it). One day I woke up and realized I was pouring all my blood, sweat and tears down a black hole -- this dysfunctional organization was NOT capable of making use of my valuable contributions and probably never would be AND that to continue to work my ass off was just going to make me see my grave a little earlier than I might otherwise.

We each have to figure out just how reciprocal we demand our various relationships to be, but those of us who MAKE those determinations make them for ourselves alone, and NO ONE has the right to question or criticize them. If I respect myself more than YOU respect YOURSELF, my tolerance for dysfunctionality and lack of reciprocity will be considerably lower than yours.

I'm not the one who votes in such a way as to enable people to come into power that started the Iraq War and have people's heat cut off and school underfunded. Please, you don't know abuse until you know stuff like that happening - what's this codependant stuff and this stuff about waiting by the phone compared to that? You know there's a difference between the parties, there just might not be one that affects your life and shelter and education (just your right to choose - I would think you'd be more concerned about that). And busting up all those people who are affected by the gap between the parties - you think they're gonna like you doing that for too long? That's not an abusive way to try to eventually get them on your side, by diminishing their supply of basic needs? I really think there are better ways to persuade people, outside of using that level of violence.

in which the "injured party" says that they are leaving and never coming back, to which others are supposed to respond "Oh no, please don't. What can we do?!"

The dramatic exit is not about actually leaving. It is about manipulating emotions. I think that's the word you want: manipulation rather than abuse.

If it were about actually leaving, the perpetrator would actually leave. Usually quietly. Oh, sometimes they actually leave, as they did in my church rather than stay and heal the rift we were having at the time. But the manner in leaving is designed to make those staying behind hopefully look and feel like losers. One former parishoner even used the "shaking the dust off our shoes against you" anology.

They left, we did the work of healing, and when we were much stronger emotionally as a congregation, some of these people quietly came on back. I give them credit for that at least. It ain't easy to come back after "dramatic exit."

:mad:

Have deserted what they have stood for over the decades. I don't recognize them. It started with Bill Clinton. I was thrilled that he won, and then was in shock with a new conservatism that was apparent in the Democratic party that I never saw before.

They proved to me on Thursday, by not standing firm in unity (by voting Aye) to protect the rights of those who's votes didn't count. Apparently their own careers were more important to them, then the people that they have sworn to serve.

BTW...did anyone catch Biden questioning Gonazales about torture, but then tell him afterwards that he likes him and is going to vote for his confirmation? Confirm someone who thinks the Geneva Conventions quaint? Enough said for now........

That they both have the same effect on the world and the US Populous?

Of course they're not the same. Bush is a sociopath, with an Imperialist agenda, and is definitely not a conservative. He is truly radical. The Neocons are anything but Conservative.

Clinton on the other hand led the Democratic Party to a centrist, almost right leaning place that the Democratic Party had never been before.

Democrats are reasonable.

I don't consider any of the Democrats that voted No on Thursday reasonable, unless its within their own boundaries of reason. Oh yes, it was reasonable considering they feared the backlash of voting Aye.

I also don't consider any Democrat who will cast their vote for Gonzales reasonable. Watch the roll call and you will see whom is in collusion with the "dark side" (neocons).

BTW...not all Republicans are radical. I posted for years on AOL message boards, and met some true Republicans who are appalled by the Sociopath and his Henchmen. They were the loudest voices on the boards, because he took his party to a place they didn't recognize.

to bloviate. I'm not one of them.

Further, I don't think not voting to overturn a potentially legit election is "unreasonable" personally.

Thankfully Barbara Boxer, Michael Moore, John Conyers and the 30 other patriots who voted for the contest consider 1/6/05 an historic catalyst for change in our nation. In fact, Ms. Boxer said 1/6 was a historic victory for democracy, and we should not get hung up on the number of yea/nay votes.

Also, I feel that the Republican agenda IS a radical one, so perhaps the Republicans at AOL should read their party platform?

As you know Republicans are said to have turned out in record numbers for the MOST radical of Republican Presidents. I think that speaks for itself. Republicans = radical.

:hi:

Conyers apparently has enough evidence to have stood up and question that legitimacy.

With all the irregularities, there is no way that the Ohio Electoral Votes should have been certified. No certification without verification.

I do think the ayes and nays were important. If the Democrats stood up as a united front, that historic move is a lost footnote. Mainstream Media couldn't have ignored it the way the have. Perhaps it would have gotten even 1/4 of the air time that Brad and Jen's break-up has received....

As to your on the street Republican as with many Democrats, they haven't a clue what is happening with their government or know what their Representatives or President really stands for. The Sociopath excels at New-speak.

Everyone at DU is politically attuned, and do not rely upon a corrupt, traitorous Media for the real news. Unfortunately that is not so for the average American. A perfect example is how many thought Saddam was involved with 9/11.

One must also remember that so many are still suffering from post-traumatic stress from 9/11. The Sociopath promised to protect them much better than Kerry did. We know that it isn't the case, but the person who works 2 jobs to keep a roof over their head and feed his/her family, dealing with the stresses of everyday life just doesn't have a clue. Many of these people have traditionally voted Republican because that is what they do. Kerry also shot himself in the foot many times during the campaign and couldn't win the ones who had questions about ** because of it.

Did you see the Gallop poll that took place a few weeks after the election? The majority of Americans were pro-choice, and for gun control. That is not radical at all.

There is a thread that is on the board that has a scoop that the People's Choice Award for Best Movie is going to Fahrenheit 9/11. Radical? I think not.

People are complex. Most things are not black and white. There is a spectrum of shades in between. I will repeat, to say all Democrats are Reasonable and all Republicans are Radical is simplistic, IMHO.

John Conyers is calling for a congretional investigation, as he should. However,as Robert Byrd said of the yea/nay votes ... "we had to vote with the information we had on 1/6/2005." That information as provided by Conyers office, did not prove fraud. It proved "irregularities" and frankly every election has "irregularities."

Barbara Boxer said 1/6/2005 "was a great day for democracy, and we shouldn't get hung up on the number of yea/nay votes in the Senate."

Additionally, "irregularities" alone are not grounds to overturn an election. THANKFULLY!

John Conyers - said his goal was not to overturn the election but to force debate. That goal was accomplished. Having every Democrat vote to overturn the election would have set a dangerous precident, and being they're in the minority - it would have been ineffective.

What we had was a win/win. We had the Senator we needed to force debate, and all Democrats aren't seen as trying to usurp the "will of the people."

Also, you'll note that Republicans generally vote in unison - "lock in step" and guess what they're contemplating for 2008, should they lose the election? ... challenging the election based on "irregularities" (should they lose.) Given the fact that they don't vote independently and have no real regard for our democracy, I am thankful as hell we didn't set a precident for such an event.

I will support and work towards on a transparent/uniform national voting standard, and so will the Demcorats in office. And, frankly were gonna need a coupla republicans to get that done.

Gonzales, and you will know what kind of party you have to work with.

Just think of this. Even if the GAO gives the investigation over to the the Justice Dept. Who does the Attorney General work for? Even if the Dems try to institute election reform, who has the majority vote? There are no more checks and balances.....

Fascism is firmly in place. The Sociopath Owns Congress, the Judiciary, the Executive and the Fourth Estate. I am not being facetious. I am dead serious.

We are pretty much shit out of luck unless we can reach We The People. That's why I'm so upset about Thursday. It was The Perfect Opportunity.

situation, the Senate surely did.

I mean WE as in DU-ers. :hi:

what I do.

Peace, love and light to you and yours, and
:hi: right back at you. :)

:hug:

I'm not going to spend too much time thinking about whatever it is you just said because I have a feeling it will tick me off if I do.

I'll vote for the candidate and party that considers my rights paramount. Welcoming the anti-choice movement into our party betrays and abuses me and my rights.

and I agree with you.
Especially as someone who used to vote Indy/Green until 2004. I had to put MY principles aside this time and think about the babies being blown up in Iraq and the elderly who can't afford both food and prescription drugs. I give those people food and other support for a living - I talk to them every day. And whatever problems I have with the Dems, they do a better job than the Repukes.
I think a lot of people here had higher expectations of the Dems than me - I, for one (a critic of the Dems for the last 10 years), doubted that any Senator would sign, so I was pretty impressed.
Welcome to political reality - the Dem politicians are playing the game too. But if a few of them are willing to break the rules of the game now, more and more will in the near future. IMHO.

And even though I vote for people who don't support some things that I do, I know that voting is really only one part of democracy. Another part is getting more support for what I believe in, and that's harder work. But if that issue starts to get strong widespread support that can't be mangled by right-wing spin, then you'll see that the Democrats can't ignore it. Look at the issue of same-sex unions - less than 10% of the population would register for one, but it has public support far beyond that due to awareness of and support for the issue.

LoZoccolo, Your analogy is a good one.

I almost voted Green in 2000 and haven't an issue with members of the Green Party, but I resent the pissants here to claim to want to "deflect" everytime the Democrats don't crap the right color.

It may have something to do with having two groups of people you can attract, and one is always threatening you and never pleased as you point out. Issues like universal coverage and keeping Social Security strong attract more solid support than the person who's going to cut and run because you haven't changed the constitution to implement instant runoff ranked ballots (so that they can tell everyone they voted for you second and not first).

:hi:

staying with the dems might be seen as staying with an abusive husband.
they knock the left about time and again.
belittle the foot work of the ordinary folk, run things so that only the belt way folk can have real influence and power...
vote with bush -- and then explain it wasn't really like that, officer.

anyway -- this analogy is bizarre.

...done to change that?? HUH? Have you joined your county party?? Have you started a Progressive caucus in your state? Have you even bothered to walk up to your elected Reps, shake their hands, and introduce yourself by name?? Or have you just whined, expecting them to read your mind??

NGU.

:kick:

None, huh? I thought not.

NGU.

NGU.

That's interesting. I've tried it before and not been able to get it to work. Sometimes I want to use it with a message that's just this smiley:

:nopity:

<> in the title.

NGU.

True Demoratic values and beliefs have taken a back seat for far too long.
Much as some (mostly from the DLC) try to force us to the back of the bus, is the counter force of not wanting to take THAT abuse anymore.

Calling those of conscience "abusive husbands' is over the top twisted.
What does it mean to be a DEMOCRAT if not the values expressed by the dissenters.

NAFTA
GATT
Media Consolidation
Pattriot Act(s)
Education Cuts
Etc, etc...

Where is the outrage...
How can Mr. Torture Gonzales even be up for debate on our side?!
How can Condi Rice who's eitther blatent neglect or willfull ignorance -and then LYING about 9/11 possibly get a 'yes' vote on our side?!

The defectors are like Rosa Parks, only if the story goes like this:

Rosa Parks refuses to move from her seat, and then the bus blows up and kills everyone and a bunch of people on the sidewalk too.

And please leave that brave woman out of it.

NGU.

Ok, now you're getting nasty!
lol
NGU
;-)

:silly:

NGU.

I think that's right on the money. As if Rush Limbaugh needed any more help making his point.

He must be overjoyed that those he calles leftwing looneys are so happy to help him carry his message about the DNC.

Congratulations left wing looneys. You've gone all the way around the circle that is the political spectrum, and met your exact clone on the other side. Only he's dressed in black and you're dressed in white. But in most other respects, you are almost exactly the same. Only the ideology has been changed.

Thank you so much for posting it. I passed it on to some friends of mine.

I have heard many of these people interviewed on various online broadcasts, but all of them in one fell swoop was quite powerful.

Thank YOU for sharing it with others. Yes, it is a great continual broadcast from a variety of notable researchers in the subject. It began broadcasting on 9/11 of '04.

I think we are so caught up in emotion, that we need to step back and look at what's going on.

It sounds like triangulation, but the roles are confused. In triangualtion, there are 3 roles: Abuser, Victim, and Rescuer. People affected by triangulation take turns playing various roles. They tend to use extremist language and black/white thinking. They have trouble seeing shades of grey, compromise, and creative responses to complex problems. They get pissed off at posts like mine.

I propose that "systems thinking" is at work here, not just on DU, but across the country. Very few people are sitting back and disengaging from the rhetoric, opting instead for flame-fests.

Ask youself these questions:
>Who is the enemy? Are you sure that's the real enemy?
>who is the victim?
>who is the hero/rescuer?
>what is YOUR role, if any, in the situation?

I highly recommend the book "The Addictive Organization" (by Anne Wilson Schaef and Diane Fassel). It explains how organizations, just like people, can become disrupted or even destroyed by addictive thinking and behavior.

...that the following political groups are in these roles...

Abusers: Republicans
Victims: Democrats
Rescuers: Progressives/Dems leaving the party

Like you, I know just enough about psychotherapy to be dangerous. :D

I hadn't considered that the Progressives were playing a role in this dysfunctional system either. I just assumed we were above the fray.

If our current political system was a dysfunctional family--the Progressives would definitely be in the scapegoat role. We bear all of the anger, sadness, outrage and "acting out" of the dysfunctional system that remains closed with its "no talk" rules and denial.

Interesting. Very interesting.

I'm not sure if we're on the same page here, but you have me thinking.

Fascinating...cuz I was the scapegoat in my family--a textbook dysfunctional family that was headed by (interestingly enough) a staunch conservative who was also a sociopath.

Hmmmm...Maybe my political activities are just an unhealthy extension of the scapegoat role.

And when you assign roles of persecutor-victim-rescuer, you are immediately caught up in the systems-thinking trap. When you play the game, you take on a role yourself.

It took me a while to finally figure out that the key to beating the system was simply not to play. This is not a passive denial. It is, instead, a very active choice to not fall into one of the roles.

I think many dems view themselves as the rescuers to the problems of society. Fair enough. But be careful when you assign blame, or when you claim someone or some party isn't doing enough. You have then assigned the role of rescuer to that person, and you (by default) become the victim.

Edwin Freeman wrote a book about family systems at work in the church. (Imagine that: dysfunctional churches!) One of the claims he makes is that there are multiple triangles, forming on multiple levels. One of the primary ones is clergy-congregation-outside threat (homosexuality, liberals, Muslims, or whatever...). All other triangles which play out are often extensions of our own personal co-dependency.

What many of the fundies don't realize is that their basic THEOLOGY is systems-based (humans/victim - evil/Satan/persecutor -Jesus/rescuer). Schaef's book simply opened my eyes further to see that entire organizations can become addictive. Theoretically, so can nations...after all, what were the basic tenets of imperialism? To save the wretched masses from themselves. We become the rescuers.

The reason the fundies fall into the trap is because "family systems thinking" is how they view God's interaction with society... We are victims of an evil world. GOD will rescue us = Shrub will be our daddy who will protect us from all those bad men. That's why * is a man of God - he is "rescuing" us.

So, do you see how the shrub's own co-dependency issues have taken us into a war based on false evidence? WE had been attacked by a great evil (OBL). Evil must be overcome. Can't find the persecutor? No problem, we'll just make up another evil (Saddam) and blame him instead. They're not hurting us? Well, have to do it to protect all those "innocent victims" who have no hope. We become rescuers to the world, hiding behind words of patriotism and freedom.

And finally, what I'm suggesting is that many of us mistakenly tried to assign that role to Kerry. The "I've got your back" messages simply reinforced the false premise that we were victims who needed to be rescued. That's why there's so much anger playing out on the board. Dadddy let us down. Daddy didn't fight for us. I'm a victim, and I'm leaving. That's codependency.

So is her "When Society Becomes an Addict," and Diane Fassel wrote a book everyone should read as well: "Working Ourselves to Death," about workaholism.

These books were in fact the beginning of my OWN recovery -- from workaholism as my own primary disease, after I'd ruined my heatlh by burning myself completely out being a good little workaholic, tho I agree with all those who define codependence as THE primary disease (even in alcoholism and other substance addictions).

I also believe, as some of the experts do, that we are all codependent to greater or lesser degree partly because we do indeed live in an addictive society. (In fact, I believe the codependence is the disease of patriarchy -- we are ALL "infected" with it from the moment of birth on, because our parents have it and pass it on starting immediately.) There are many addictive substances and processes that our culture either actively encourages (workaholism, for one, spending/hoarding aka: consumerism) or at the very least enables (sex, alcohol, others).

There's another really good book, "My Name Is Chellis and I'm in Recovery from Western Civilization," by Chellis Glendinning, and anyone interested in the pathology of the fundies among us, be sure to read "When God Becomes a Drug" by Father Leo Booth.

RevCheese -- I wanna make sure you see this superb article, which I linked to upthread:

The Politics of Victimization
http://mathewgross.com/blog/archives/001041.html

That is one excellent article. Have you posted it here? Maybe in a few days, people may be more open to reading what's written there.

Yes, I agree the politics of victimization are at work - but I also am radical enough to claim they're at work, right here at DU. Look at all the arguing and bullying. The hatred being spewed on here since Thursday is unacceptable, and I, for one, am not going to just accept it. It's the elephant in the room, and it is disguised as a donkey.

than work to bring about change. For whatever reason, they feel a need to threaten. They wonder why politicians are afraid to take firm stands on issues, when their jobs are constantly being threatened. I don't think it's coincidental that the Black Caucus was in the forefront of the challenge Thursday. African-Americans are the most loyal constituents for Democratic politicians. Tendentious talk is not persuasive and ultimately undermines more than it accomplishes.
To work on changing the election system, sign up through this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x262387

this crap. They will be back when they realize this effort is growing.

I can understand how some people consider themselves loyal Democrats but dislike the DNC and/or DLC.

Also, one doesn't need to be a registered Democrat to vote for Democrats.

As for threats to defect from the party or take away a vote if a legislator does X, I'm not sure I'd so much call that a threat as taking action, not unlike a boycott, strike, or civil disobedience. I think of unions, and figures like Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

I think that kind of action is a different story from defecting after the fact out of spite or disillusionment. And it's also different from voting for a third party knowing that doing so will get a Republican elected.

I think our vote is all we have that matters to the legislators. And for some of them, our voter registration is also important.

Thus these two things are the public's reserves to be used in an absolute emergency, when a terrible legislation or decision is in danger of occurring.

That's how I see it, anyway.

-wildflower

ON EDIT: For what it's worth, I also believe very strongly in positive reinforcement, and think both positive reinforcement and negative feedback are necessary to promote change. I believe in sending thank you notes to legislators and media figures - whether or not you normally like them - when they have done something, no matter how small, to stand up for truth and values of compassion.

I'm not talking about registration, I guess, but voting.