moderates

The Re-Positioning Tango

by: Mike Lux

Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 13:30

It’s only been a week, and I am already sickened unto death of the re-positioning tango over how to re-position ourselves to win the next election. Of course, maybe one of the reasons I am sick of it is that it happens after every losing election. The biggest reason I am sick of it, though, is that none of it really matters at all to the voters Democrats lost in this election and need to win back. The swing voters we lost in this election, as I wrote about here, are the economically stressed working and middle class- the ones whose mortgages are underwater or in danger of getting there, the ones whose family members are losing jobs or having hours being cut back, the ones who haven’t gotten a raise in 2 or 3 years, the ones whose pensions and savings are worth a lot less than they were 3 years ago. And you know what: they couldn’t care less how Obama or other Democrats are positioned. What they do care about are having good jobs come back to their communities, and having their homes’ value start to edge up again.

That’s why the new memo from Third Way doesn’t do much for me. It doesn’t make me angry, either, although I know it is supposed to: you know, get the debate between liberals and moderates engaged and all that. What it does do is go to my friends at Third way’s favorite stalking horse, the fact that self-identified liberals only make up 20% of the electorate. You know what? Just so Third Way folks don’t feel like they have to keep beating this dead horse, I will be glad to stipulate that point in this and all future arguments: self-described liberals are a small minority of the electorate, and you can’t win elections with only their votes. See, we agree. And who ever said progressives couldn’t get along with moderates?

There's More... :: (9 Comments, 884 words in story)

Legislative Voting Should be Done Blindly

by: Daniel De Groot

Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 00:20

During the run up to the Stupak amendment, it appeared that the measure could be defeated by turning a few Democrats against it.  In the end, 64 Democrats voted for it, 23 more than the 41 minimum needed to pass it (assuming all Republicans voted for it).  During the vote, some observers described Democrats "piling on" once they saw the measure would pass anyway.  This sort of thing happens all the time, but I have never seen a critical word written about the practice.

Why should it be that when asked to vote on a bill, members of Congress can watch how others are voting, and even change their vote before the result is finalized?  Whose interest is that in?  Who benefits?  What societal value exists in allowing politicians to so obviously shift in the breeze?  

Outcomes in legislative bodies must be a matter of public record, but there's no inherent reason that during the vote members should see how others are voting, know the count, and even be able to change their already cast vote, is there?  Ordinary citizens do not get this luxury when voting; generally no results are published until the polls close (at least for their state).  Should they vote for the wrong person, how many jurisdictions would allow a second ballot, to try again?  

There's More... :: (9 Comments, 711 words in story)

Collin Peterson Objectively Pro-Flooding

by: Natasha Chart

Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:00

This is the crux of the problem with federal climate change action. Collin Peterson (D-MN), one of the chief architects of the weakening of the ACES climate bill, recently said the following regarding global warming:

"We've just had the biggest floods and coldest winters we've ever had. They're saying to us [that climate change is] going to be a big problem because it's going to be warmer than it usually is; my farmers are going to say that's a good thing since they'll be able to grow more corn."

He said this in spite of the fact that the projected warming would be disastrous for corn pollination, and hence, yield. Worse, he says so in spite of the fact that global warming is going to engender a lot of local flooding in many of the world's farming regions.

Scratch that. Global warming is, right now, already increasing flooding in many areas, as it is projected to do in Peterson's Minnesota, as well as the districts and states of many other staunch opponents of getting this country on the path to carbon neutrality. A taste ...

There's More... :: (3 Comments, 454 words in story)

On Moderates and Radicals

by: leftvet

Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:38

Look, I've got nothing against moderates.

Probably, if I took a good look in the mirror -- that is, looked at my ACTIONS as opposed to my BELIEFS - I'm probably more of a moderate than I want to admit.  

I still think of myself - proudly so - as a radical: the long-haired, fire-eyed anti-war Vietnam veteran of my youth, fighting for truth and justice, banging my head incessantly - and generally fruitlessly - against the establishment brick wall, questioning authority, espousing revolution, a genuine, uncompromising, romantic idealist.  That's who I see in my mind's eye.  

The "mirror" tells a different story.  Middle-aged, pot-bellied, father of two pre-teens, apartment in the city, house in the country, debt up to my eyeballs, classic middle-class.  

The problem is, now I GOT something - somewhat less, perhaps, than some others my age, because I spent a large part of my youth sort of pretending that GETTING things wasn't important to me --  but now I got `em, and damn, like anybody else, I wanna keep `em!  And wanting to keep the things you got - however few they might be - tends to make moderates out of radicals.

See, thar's the rub, the problem with moderates.  Deep down, they don't want change, because change could threaten the accumulations of their lives, and since their lives are defined by their accumulations, the very essence of their being is threatened by change.  

So moderates tend to vassal politically back and forth between left and right, looking for "leaders", that is, someone who will protect them and the things they have acquired.  Moderates are ultimately defined by their slavish devotion to the status quo, and will consider and accept "change" only so far as they can be convinced that change will bolster the existence of the status quo.  

That's where the radicals come in.  Left to their own devices, moderates would prefer to sit there and do nothing.  Moderates are comfortable; they have their "things", life is good.  A moderate thinks, "I am comfortable, why should I change?"  It is the job of the radical to make the moderate uncomfortable, because that is the only way to get the moderate to consider change.

Look at what the neocon radicals have done.  They took the events of 9/11, fashioned a whole mythology of fear and external threat, and got a great mass of mewling moderates to accept - that is, not vigorously challenge - a fundamental change in the vision, values, and policies of their government.  The right wing radicals made them uncomfortable - the terrarists are threatening "our way of life" - so the rule of law, constitutional protections, right to privacy, habeas corpus, checks and balances all go out the window.  The totalitarian radical will always say, "In order to give you security, we must take away your freedom."  The moderate will almost always respond to the right wing radical, "Take my freedom, give me security, and let me keep my things."

The right lets their radicals yell - LOUDLY.  The left tries to silence its radicals.  The right understands you need radicals to move the moderates.  The left thinks that radicals alienate the moderates.  Yeah, on occasion, we (see, I still identify myself as a radical) do alienate moderates.  My response?  Tough shit, they deserve it.  Did I alienate anyone with that?  Good.  It's my job as a radical to alienate, to make uncomfortable, to challenge the status quo.  I don't even have to be right.  I merely need to make the moderates THINK about change, something they will seldom do on their own.

Radical leftists fulfill another role, also.  We can make the proposals of the liberal leftists look appealing to the moderates.  We spout revolution; they offer reform.  Their proposals for "change" look "moderate" when compared to ours. Some of the great pieces of social legislation of which the Democratic Party is justifiably proud started out as the revolutionary ideas of the radical left that were "reformed" down by the liberal left, and ultimately accepted by the moderates.

My message in all this?  Do not silence your radicals.  Do not be ashamed of them.  Welcome them to the discourse, engage them in constructive debate, listen to their challenges, and challenge their assumptions.  That is what democracy is fuckin all about.  

This country has been - and will be - the better for it.

Discuss :: (0 Comments)

The non-vital center

by: David Kowalski

Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 15:22

The Democratic victory of 2006 is sometimes spun as a triumph of the conservative Democrats.  A more accurate picture is that it was a major defeat for the moderate Republicans and a victory for progressives.  Four of the six most moderate Republicans in the House went down to defeat or retired (Sherwood Boehlert was replaced by a Democrat).  Three other moderate Republicans were also defeated in the House. The most progressive Republican in the Senate and the fifth most moderate both were defeated (Lincoln Chaffee, Mike DeWine).

The losers and their Progressive Punch scores:

Sherwood Boehlert (retired)  29.31
Jim Leach  28.74
Mike Fitzpatrick  27.00
Nancy Johnson  26.08
Rob Simmons  21.74
Sue Kelly  18.28
Joe Schwarz  15.20

There's More... :: (0 Comments, 319 words in story)
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox