My friend Kal Lis puts theocrat extremist Bob Ellis and Democrat activist Anna M. Madsen in the same category of unrealistic political purist.
Madsen's prose is far superior to Ellis's, and she supports her arguments with far more concrete detail than Ellis does, but both seem to be looking for impossible political purity. Bismarck's phrase may have become a cliche, but it remains true: politics is the art of the possible.
It's certainly imprudent for South Dakota to veer further to right. It may also be impossible for South Dakota Republicans to become more conservative with becoming pharisaical, akin to the money changers in the temple. Given South Dakota's political landscape, it's impossible for a true progressive in the mold of Lafollette, FDR, or George McGovern to win a statewide race [Kal Lis, "South Dakota Politics and the Art of the Possible," The Displaced Plainsman, 2013.05.07].
Putting any Democrat in the same category as Bob Ellis should cause all parties a nasty rash. In this case, it is also fundamentally wrong. In her latest Daily Kos entry, Madsen simply contends that there is a certain threshold of conservatism that a candidate may cross that makes it impossible to accurately call that candidate a Democrat. Madsen says Stephanie Herseth Sandlin's voting record on gay marriage, the Affordable Care Act, credit card reform, employment benefits, and en ergy policy shows she has crossed that threshold. Madsen contends that South Dakota Democrats could make a clear case for why the state and national Democratic platform better serves South Dakota interests "if we had a chance to offer them without the interference of the Powers That Be preventing healthy conversation about our state party’s identity and direction."
Madsen offers a reasonable and debatable political argument. The Ellis text the arouses Kal Lis's attention has Bob Ellis prooftexting the Bible to say God loves Bob's righteous hate and that everyone who disagrees with his radical right-wing politics worships Satan.
South Dakota Republicans really grate my cheese, but even I will grant that calling Stephanie Herseth Sandlin a Republican is a far cry from calling liberals and moderates Satanic evil.
Ellis is proof that humans and apes have common ancestors.
I'll defend myself on a couple of quick points. I never argued that the quality of the argument was equal. I implied Madsen's was more substantive.
The point is that both want a certain purity test that makes their candidate of choice unelectable in South Dakota. I also argued that both make themselves easy to stereotype. Ellis’s choosing to list every verse combining God and hate certainly plays to stereotype. So does Madsen comparing electing a Democratic candidate to ordering a Vegetarian Delight.
I’m fine with moderates who think things through. In South Dakota that makes me a liberal. At age 56, I’m not sure I’ll live to see the day South Dakota elects a true liberal to statewide office. I hope we never see an Ellis backed candidate elected statewide.
The day Thune beat Dashle, it became virtually impossible for a liberal to win a SD statewide election unless the Dems make some fundamental changes in how they built their party. Until Dems do the work at the precinct and district level to elect people to the legislature, having a Democratic candidate win the U.S. Senate or U.S. House race will be merely window dressing.
To Larry's point, chimpanzees have superstitions: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/05/05/seeing-ourselves-in-other-species/
I agree that there is a similarity between Ellis and Madsen.
But I think there is even more in common with Ellis and Ryan Casey. The constant drum beat for a progressive from Casey is similar to Ellis' constant drum beat for a conservative.
The only difference between Casey and Ellis is that Ellis is nuts while Casey is just trying to push the Dems to the left and probably stick it to Herseth.
Both are bad for their party when they start criticizing someone as not good enough to be the standard bearer.
Big Wheel Bob
Big Wheel Bob
Ya need to read the bible to keep your job
He wants you locked in the kitchen and tied to a kid
He wants to know all about what your neighbors did
He's a legend in his own mind
Big Wheel Bob
The Blindman
My nutjob is better than yours....No mine is....no mine is....no mine is.....no mine is........
Does is sound any less childish to anyone else?
Ms. Madsen's argument is not only reasonable; it draws some very discerning parallels as the basis for distinguishing compromise from being compromised. It has a literary dimension that goes beyond formal reason and illustrates the division point between moral integrity and mindless bigotry.
The discussions about the comparative validity and merit between conservative and progressive arguments often neglect to confront a hugely defining difference. The conservatives immerse themselves in the ad hominem. Their rhetorical premise--a premise that refutes what makes for legitimate rhetoric--is defamation. In the tradition of Mosaic Law, they term anyone or any idea that does not conform to their set of hatreds an abomination. For the theologically minded, who would acknowledge that The New Law (as given in the New Testament) is a revision, often a downright refutation, of Mosaic Law, it is easily possible to note how conservative political stances are often in violation of the words and spirit of the The New Law. They are obsessed with impugning the character, the very person, and the motives of political opponents. Progressives tend to state their political objectives and criticize the ideas and the tactics that stand in the way of giving them a fair hearing. That is the qualitative difference between a Madsen and Ellis argument.
When Tom Daschle was defeated, there were many of us who were frustrated that he refused to meet Thune's campaign of character defamation on its own terms. It is probably true that election signaled a point at which it would be impossible to elect a Democrat in future statewide races. The fundamental challenge for Democrats is contained in what a very prominent Democrat said at a recent meeting: I may have to live in South Dakota, but I don't have to think in South Dakota.
To people who embrace compromise but don't wish to be compromised, Herseth Sandlin's voting record is a definitive one that compromise cannot change.
DB, as David and Kal Lis himself points out, this is a not a comparison of nutjob to nutjob. Anna Madsen is no nutjob. Ellis, to put it briefly, is. Your equivalency-blah-blah dodge won't work here.
One huge difference between Bob Ellis and Madsen and any of Cory's foul-mouthed progressive God-haters.
BOB IS RIGHT!!!
Ellis is a mealy-mouthed earth hater suffering bouts of temporal lobe epilepsy.
Ed Picardi is going to jail.
Good hearing from you again Ed.
If you're looking for something to do tongight, I recommend this Flannery O'Connor short story "Revelation."
Something about how you, Gordon, Bob, and Brad Ford carry on in the blogosphere reminds me of the Turpins, the protagonists in the story.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30444531/Revelation-by-Flannery-O-Connor
It starts a little slow, but it packs a punch at the end
Hope you like it. Nothin' but love
This new candidate stuff is hilarious isn't it Mr. kurtz? I am just snotbubbling away here.
jitterbug perfume, my good troll.
Herseth-Sandlin was a great disappointment. She went after college students to help her in her first campaign and then voted against improvement in student loans, etc. It did not take college students long to forget about working or voting for her. The product of blue dogs is blue dog crap.
Once Johnson, Daschle, Herseth get money from big money interests the forgot who they had to have voting for them and essentially said "screw you" to all of us. They assumed money and DINO voting would give them a winning road in South Dakota.
Democrats need a candidate willing to support their interests if they are going to get out and work for a candidate and then vote for them. Big banks, big insurance, corporate health are not the hotbeds of Democratic interests.
"they," doug? have you screwed the pooch?
Pat is padding his own posts with spew again: gawd.
Mr. Wiken, will you donate big to Mr. Weiland? Big will help him.
First, the La Follettes were Republicans. You have to understand that progressivism was a good government movement that drew a lot of support from the small business and rural Republicans.
Second, McGovern may have been a liberal on the national scene, but he wasn't much of one on most state issues. He was a pretty moderate guy, getting support from Chamber of Commerce types. In fact, when Pressler ran his first race, he was more anti-establishment than McGovern ever was.
I think there is room for progressive alternatives in both political parties to win.
No one expected Herseth Sandlin to join the Progressive Caucus, but she shouldn't have voted like a Tea Partier. She just blew it trying to not be a Democrat.
(Ed , Anna Madsen is an ordained Lutheran pastor. I don't think she hates God. I haven't heard her be foul-mouthed.)
Donald,
I never said LaFollette was a Democrat; I just said someone in the progressive mold would not win in SD. In part, I think that's because something like ND's NPL or MN's DFL never caught on here
We going to have to disagree about whether progressive candidates can win in SD. I see no evidence that it's possible in the current climate.
I can read and understand Madsen points but with Bob there is no point even asking him a question as all he knows how to do is attack anybody who dares to disagree by calling them names and telling them he is always right.
Cory, every time the Republicans come out with one more self-righteous tirade, it shoves me further away from them. In Oregon, everytime I come close to giving them a chance, it quickly evaporates because they never fail to show their true colors. Just when I begin understand some of the valid points they make, a "Bob Ellis" type comes out of the political wood-work with a "political tirade" on God, Guns, and THEIR "American Way," to repel me back to common sense.
"Second, McGovern may have been a liberal on the national scene, but he wasn't much of one on most state issues. He was a pretty moderate guy, getting support from Chamber of Commerce types. In fact, when Pressler ran his first race, he was more anti-establishment than McGovern ever was."
I don't think McGovern shed his liberal principles when he was in South Dakota. He was very skilled in presenting progressive ideas in ways that even conservatives could find reason for agreement. He educated as much as campaigned. He also had staff that got things done for constituents or at least showed why something was impossible.
Unlike too many politicians, I think what McGovern said and what he believed had quite high correlation with each other.
I dunno, Doug. I agree McGovern had the gift of presenting liberal ideas in gentlemanly way that didn't automatically turn off Republicans. The fact that many of his Republican opponents were less the great candidates helped him garner more Republican support than he might have expected otherwise. On the other hand, McGovern was outright ruthless to opponents of the Oahe Irrigation Project, many of whom were his natural allies, who were asking reasonable questions about the project.
Donald and Douglas, you must also remember that George McGovern came about in a time period when our politics were not so polarized as they are today. In fact there have been studies that show that our two political parties of the time were made up of members that varied greatly in their ideological persuassions (in other words, both parties were not as unified ideologically). Today, both parties are more ideologically unified then they were during the McGovern Era. I attended a recent political lecture at the University of Oregon, here in Eugene, that showed research proving our two political parties have moved toward more narrow and unified ideological identification among their members.
Do you remember the "Scoop" Jackson - McGovern Rivalry? This is a specific example to highlight what I posted earlier. Senator "Scoop" Jackson of Washington State and George McGovern were both Democrats. However, "Scoop" was a Democrat Hawk and McGovern was considered a Democrat Dove on the issue of Vietnam (although George served in WWII). They didn't get along personally and did not see eye to eye ideologically. "Scoop" even worked against McGovern's Presidential ambitions in 1972 when he coordinated the "Anyone But McGovern" wing of the Democratic Party.