Right Fighting

Dr Phil has all the credibility of a tree frog.

No he doesn't.

Of course he does: he's an entertainer. However, the concept of right fighting still haunts and he is the person I can source as the originator, or at least the populizer, of it.

I think that whether we chose to fight and how has important ramifications for us as a nation.

are you sure that you understand the definition ot right fighting?
http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Byler1.html

As I wrote in my framing statement, the concept is vague. Your informative article offers that right fighting is socially sanctioned violence which is akin to something I mentioned.

What I am trying to do is figure out the various kinds of politically fighting that are allowed and not and by whom, which is why I posted this.

Being "right" - or "winning" the argument becomes more important than the issue itself. It becomes its own battle, taking on a life of its own.

I see and hear it all the time in marriages, relationships, board meetings, work environment, etc.

It is exhausting and non productive and leads to bad feelings between people.

Personally, I think pride is the basis for this kind of person who is intent on being a "right fighter.'

I am not sure I understand the question.

First, are you implying that aggression (socially sanctioned or not) is a bad thing? From the examples you gave; abolitionists and suffragettes, it seems that you understand there is a place for political aggression (there is an obvious difference here between aggression and violence).

Why wouldn't someone fight for what they believe is right?

Sully, there are a couple of issues here.

Fighting for what you believe in is not the same thing as being closed minded. I can listen to what the other side is saying, and I might even change my mind if there is a compelling enough argument... this does not mean I won't fight for what I believe is right until this time.

I supposed there is a difference between fighting for an ideal-- and fighting just to win the fight... but this seems like a very subjective distinction (I may think you just stubbornly keep fighting to win the fight when you really think you are standing for what is right). This may be a theoretical point that has no value in practice.

But I do know this... every time that something significantly good has happened in society, there was a "Right Fighter" behind it.

Alice Paul went to prison for being a public nuisance. She stubbornly stuck to her guns, through a hunger strike and being force fed. She won the right to vote for all women.

Rosa Parks stubbornly broke the law with the full intent of disturbing the peace. She was defended by Dr King and thousands of people who went around purposely upsetting public order. They made the country a much better place.

History is full of this type of people, from John Scopes to Cesar Chavez, who went to insane lengths to stand up for their beliefs-- and upset a whole lot of people in the process.

I can't imagine not having something to fight for.

I am thinking that the question has nothing to do with "right-fighting", but rather is about stubbornness. Re that: I think that this list of things one holds that are not open for negotiation should be..must be...very short. However, I would not want to be with or work with someone who had no such list.

when it comes to politics i'm completely a "right fighter", the only belief i have regarding politics is that every politician,after beng elected, should be placed in a sealed lucite box and have the air pumped out , therefore every political position i take is a fight to win an argument i have doubts about about from the beginning.

of course this could just make me a douche bag

That's exactly what I am saying . . . for 8 years, we heard the value of reaching across the aisles which meant that everyone should jump on the bush administration bandwagon.

Well, when do you reach across and when do you hold fast? People running for public office present themselves. The voters hope that what they see is what they will get, however, they have no idea just how much 'tailoring' is behind the image.

During the bush years, the Democrats were good roommates and largely co-operated although some of that co-operation was unrewarded, as was No Child Left Behind.

Obama has been conciliatory in the extreme and alienated much of his electorate. The irony is that although the left sees him as too right of center, too much a Moderate Republican, the right sees him as a socialist.

Granted, both sides should fight.

However, as a society, we often think of a tendency to fight as a character flaw. Well, just as there are times when it is, there are times when not standing up for one's self and one's beliefs is also a character flaw.

During the bush years, reaching across the aisle clearly meant do it our way. I was standing firm against this reaching but there can be a positive meaning of reaching. LBJ, an operator and mover and shaker if there ever was one, used the words of the OT: Come, let us reason together.

If reaching across the aisle is reasoning together, it is fine. If it bowing down to the will of the other, it is not.

That's funny. However, I am more concerned with the followers of politicians than with the politicians themselves.

For example, I have a need to fight against some of the automatic nay saying on the part of the right. Again, on the other hand, I dropped in at the home of a high school friend just after we had each graduated from different colleges. She wasn't there but her mother was. Her mother told me that what this country needed was a right wing regime and once the public saw how horrible it would be, they would get it out of office and never embrace the right again. I think she believed too strongly in human goodness.

I am a militant pragmatist.

I have in my mind a list of changes that would be required to get to what I consider an ideal society. However, I am very aware of the fact that most of the changes to get to an ideal society are simply politically/socially impossible now, and probably will be impossible forever.

So we have to figure out the possible, what are the ways we can fight to make society "better" (where better is obviously a subjective term) where we can win the fight. The worthwhile fights are for changes that are possible (politically and socially).

The fight is what matters. The other things are just tools. People who don't understand that politics (or anything that affects social change) isn't a strategic battle are fools. Things like "bipartisanship" or "reaching across the aisle" are just strategic moves in the political chess game. Sometimes they are good moves (when they push things toward your direction). Sometimes they are bad moves (when they give your opponents an upper hand).

So to answer your question-- "When do you reach across and when do you hold fast?". Well, you reach across when reaching across is to your strategic advantage, and you hold fast when it isn't.

The interesting part in the game of politics is the coalition-- politics is not a zero-sum game. Often two opponents can find common cause (generally against a third enemy)-- which makes reaching across often a good move.