On Thursady, AZDem had a recommended diary at DKos, "The Myth of Certainty: Obama, Liberals & Daily Kos " that's arguably a perfect example of the way that a marginally hipper version of High Broderism manifests itself at DKos, and elsewhere throughout the blogosphere and beyond.
As with Broder himself, the diary depends on a simplistic, schematic false equivalency of left and right, which ends up praising shallow centrism as a fount of deep wisdom. Given its origins, it does not end up outright endorsing center-right policies as if they were centrist. It simply praises Obama, so that as he compromises further and further, it will have exactly the same effect, praising him for his centrism as he moves ever farther right ... unless, of course, progressives reject this argument, and pressure Obama so that he does not drift further and further right. What's more, it even goes so far as to label this centrism as "true liberalism."
In this diary, I want to challenge the simplistic terms of AZDem's narrative about certainty, and I want to propose an alternative framework--the Enlightenment framework of critical reason, which an August 2003 congressional report found to be under sustained attack by the Bush Administration. While AZDem wants to push the narrative that other Kossack liberals have run amuck with Bush-like certainty, deludedly attacking Obama for his anti-Bush willingness to hear all sides, I propose a radically different view, one that's much more grounded in the nitty-gritty of the actual historical record.
In my view, the problem is, quite simply, that Obama has not consistently committed himself to re-establishing and rehabilitating the framework of truth-seeking in policy-setting and communicating with the American people. My problem with Obama is not that he listens to conservatives, but that he accepts as valid conservative claims without empirical foundation, while at the same time ignoring progressive points of view--even when well-founded, and when representing substantial majority opinion.
Coming out of last weekend's discussion in my diary "Progressive Populism--Some Basic Questions Moving Forward", I invited Nancy Brodier to write a diary introducing her concept of a web-based coalition-building tool. She did so, and you can read the result here. I urge everyone to read it, but at around 8,000 words, I think it could use a push. So this diary is going to discuss some of the major points she makes, including a few long excerpts. I think there's great merit and potential in her idea, and one purpose of Open Left is to be an incubator of new ideas, new approaches, new strategies and new alliances. So hopefully this is just the beginning of an ongoing discussion-and more, if people are inspired to dive in and help Nancy move this project forward to implementation.
In broad strokes, Nancy's diary argues that
"[T]he U.S. is on the verge of economic and financial disaster as a result of its lawmakers' acts and omissions over the past several decades."
There is an emerging progressive majority, driven by the growing voting block of Millennial generation voters, who voted overwhelmingly for Obama in the last election.
Still, the entrenched system of money-dominated special interest politics that created our problems in the first place is largely immune to the majority will as things presently stand.
This can change if we're able to take advantage of and supplement the bottom-up democratizing aspects of new technology, to allow people to engage in networked agenda-setting from below, which is the purpose of the interactive tool Nancy has developed.
Nancy feels it is important to first discuss the current economic crisis, whose depth and severity the political establishment continues to deny, in order to clearly establish the context and political motivation. She does a good job of this, but I suspect that most Open Left readers don't need much convincing on that score, so I'm not going to stress that part of her diary in this overview. Instead, I want to begin quoting a passage where she summarizes what her invention is all about....
Senator Barbara Boxer, who chairs the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, announced this week that her committee won't mark up energy and climate legislation until after the August recess. That's a good thing. It means progressive groups and activists have more time to coordinate their efforts to support the emergence of a progressive bloc of senators on these issues.
Maybe it's time the Punditalkcrazy realized that Sarah Palin is the most polarizing politician in the Republican Party, not just America. Rasmussen reports:
Although, Newt is more evenly balanced. (Now there's five words in the English language I bet you never thought you'd see in the same sentence with a negation!)
Maybe Obama meant "fierce advocate against gay rights", though, in all fairness, maybe he didn't mean anything at all.
Maybe Charles Franklin (cofounder of Pollster.com) is smarter than the entire Punditalkcrazy put together. Okay, not saying much. But his take on Palin is all the proof you need....
Enfranchising America's least represented citizens is as simple as following the law: that's the message Project Vote and a coalition of voting rights groups sent today as they filed lawsuits against Indiana and New Mexico for failing to comply with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
The first descriptive term the Blue Dogs use to describe themselves on their website is "fiscally conservative." Calling themselves "fiscally conservative," is kind of hard to swallow, given that as a group between 60% and 90% of them voted for blank checks in Iraq in 2007, the Wall Street bailout in October, the stimulus bill in February, and the largest budget in history back in March. So, the Blue Dogs are fiscally conservative, except on every single major spending policy.
Another great example of Blue Dog fiscal conservatism comes from their letter to Speaker Pelosi on health care. In the letter, they actually argue it would be bad if the federal government saved costs by spending less to pay for health care:
In order to establish a level playing field, providers must be fairly reimbursed at negotiated rates and their participation must be voluntary. A "Medicare-like" public option would negatively impact hospitals, doctors and patients. Medicare reimbursement is on average 20 to 30 percent lower than private plans and this inequality is even greater in some parts of the country.
This is an outright negation of their primary public rationale for existence. The 40 Blue Dogs who signed this letter are actually arguing that the federal government should pay 20-30% more than current plans indicate for the exact same amount of the exact same services. They want the federal government to spend more and get nothing extra back in return.
Many of the Blue Dogs are simply not intellectually honest. Some others are not even really that intellectual, given how often they contradict themselves and repeat lobbyist talking points verbatim.
If they were smart and intellectually honest, you might be able to point out to them it is impossible to start lowering the cost of health insurance unless some entity begins selling lower priced health insurance. The Blue Dog argument is that we can just keep paying everyone in the health care industry the same amount of money, and that somehow prices will go down anyway. That doesn't make any sense, but try explaining that to them.
An exciting announcement: Representative Donna Edwards will be answering your questions on Open Left today at noon eastern.
Use this thread to ask Representative Edwards some questions beforehand. Right now the political focus is obviously health care, but feel free to ask any questions you like.
Update (12:11): Representative Edwards is logging on now. Check the comments for her responses to your questions. Also, I imagine there is still time to ask a couple questions.
Update 2: Having some technical difficulties. I am now posting her answers as she sends them to me over email.
Update 3: Votes will be called soon. Representative Edwards has to go vote, but will return soon to answer more questions. I will be posting her responses in a separate thread later today.
Update 4: Another response posted. Representative Edwards thanks everyone for posting questions, and that she looks forward to coming back again soon. I'll see if I can get more answers to your questions later today.
Update 5: Looks like that is all Representative Edwards can do today. I am sorry to everyone who didn't have their question answered--it is my fault, due to technical difficulties. However, she says that she will come back soon, and I think we made some news with at least one of her answers. Representative Edwards is taking the FDL pledge!
