Re: Why Do Liberals Keep Sanitizing the Obama Story?
One of the ironies of history is that the two most common uses of the word Progressive have been in the politics of the USA, and Communism. In the USA you had a Progressive Era in which high level and rather good environmental policies were passed at the same time as the constitutional amendment banning booze, and America became a more aggressive imperial power than it had been before -Theodore Roosevelt may have been a Progressive, but his administration referred to Asians as Pacific Negroes, on the basis that if there was a Manifest Destiny in the USA, it was White and Aryan (see the Bradley link below).
By contrast we used to laugh at the language used in some of the literature coming out of the USSR which referred to the Progressive and Freedom Loving Peoples of the USSR, or the Progressive and Freedom Loving Workers and Toilers who have chosen the Communist Party to guide them, etc etc. The word Progressive was also part of Fascist discourse in Europe, particularly in Italy where in its first phase Fascism was associated with modernity and contrasted with both communism, and the conservative stasis of the first Republic.
In politics, the word is pretty much discredited in Europe.
James Bradley - The Imperial Cruise - Part 1 - YouTube
Re: Why Do Liberals Keep Sanitizing the Obama Story?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hippifried
I do, & I take offence. I'm not alone. You self-proclaimed "progressives" are pissing off the liberal base by making the exact same claims about us as the batshits on AM Clearchannel. I keep coming across more & more "progressives" who are every bit as intolerant as the reactionary teabaggers, just pointing in the other direction. There's nothing liberal about it. I was going to give the teabaggers props for being honest, but there's just as many conservative folks who are every bit as pissed off at being lumped in with the "I'm ignorant & proud of it" crowd. Labels are the biggest problem in politics, because they attempt to pigeonhole everybody into one extreme or the other along the lame linear descriptive, that really doesn't describe anything but extremes. Most people aren't fanatics. I find the label insulting. You don't speak for me, & neither do those whom you follow. It's not about policy or expectations. It's not about any particular philosophy. It's an attitude. An approach to the thought process.
"I" am certainly not pissing off the liberal base, and I'm definitely not making the same claims about the liberal and conservative base. I don't know where you get that.
You keep saying that labels are bullshit, and when I say labels don't matter you object, it seems like they do matter quite a lot to you. And you seem to be arguing that labels are in fact much more fundamental than most people: you say liberal and conservative are basic approaches to thinking, which implies quite significant differences, more than just a preference for the appropriate role of government. I'm not disagreeing with that assessment but it does imply quite a meaningful gulf between liberals and conservatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hippifried
The Manning case isn't about free speech in any way shape or form. He's a member of the military (by choice), in military custody, awaiting court martial under the UCMJ, for the crime of espionage. His rights aren't being violated as far as anything I've heard. He knew the consequences of his actions & took them anyway. If you want to admire him, fine, but that won't be an excuse for keeping him out of prison. Don't get your expectations up.
I never said the Manning case was a free speech issue. I said it was a civil liberties issue, specifically, a 5th amendment issue. I used free speech as an analogy to point out it's for people whom we dislike that following the law is the most important, because that's when it's difficult to do so, that's what makes them rights and not just preferences. It's easy to tolerate popular speech. Worrying about our personal feelings toward Manning is the same as the right-wing personally attacking the OWS protestors instead of engaging on the substance of their cause. It's a distraction from the real issue.
More evidence of rendition, although the first article was explicit the administration continues to do it.
http://www.thenation.com/article/161...-sites-somalia
Re: Why Do Liberals Keep Sanitizing the Obama Story?
Quote:
In politics, the word is pretty much discredited in Europe.
It actually works as a political descriptive for policies & even specific ideals, as long as it's used as an adjective. When you try to make it into a noun, both the term & its user lose credence. It creates a pigeonhole. A noun is a thing, & therefore can't be some other thing. The term might work to describe an aspect of someone's professed thoughts &/or positions. But there might be many more aspects within that same person for which that particular descriptive doesn't work at all. That would make the label a lie, & the person who used the label a liar. But it's not a label at all as an adjective. It becomes a label, & therefore a lie, when you stick an article in front of it & use it as a noun. Then it just becomes an attack point, regardless of whether you're on offense or defense. The use of labels on people is deliberate rancor that detracts from the dialog & doesn't allow for the freeflow of ideas.
Re: Why Do Liberals Keep Sanitizing the Obama Story?
This is a bullshit thread title, and a bullshit meme being pushed by Friedersdorf and Chait. "Liberals" are called out as if all liberals are letting Obama off the hook here. Couldn't be farther from the truth. The Left has always been good at criticizing their own, and there are lots of liberals that have been very vocal about the worst parts of the Obama administration, especially the civil rights stuff. Friedersdorf from the Center-Right and Chait from the Center-Left are just concern trolling here. I seem to remember OMK criticizing the big long piece cited by Ben and written by David Frum about the GOP. I actually agreed with OMK's sentiment that Frum doesn't speak for conservatives. This piece is the same thing, in reverse. Liberals don't really need to pay attention to what these two guys say. It's meaningless.
Re: Why Do Liberals Keep Sanitizing the Obama Story?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Odelay
This is a bullshit thread title, and a bullshit meme being pushed by Friedersdorf and Chait. "Liberals" are called out as if all liberals are letting Obama off the hook here. Couldn't be farther from the truth. The Left has always been good at criticizing their own, and there are lots of liberals that have been very vocal about the worst parts of the Obama administration, especially the civil rights stuff. Friedersdorf from the Center-Right and Chait from the Center-Left are just concern trolling here. I seem to remember OMK criticizing the big long piece cited by Ben and written by David Frum about the GOP. I actually agreed with OMK's sentiment that Frum doesn't speak for conservatives. This piece is the same thing, in reverse. Liberals don't really need to pay attention to what these two guys say. It's meaningless.
The so-called Left should criticize the Left when they disagree or find fault with them. As should the so-called Right.
I mean, the "right" claims to be concerned with reducing spending. But I don't think the Republican brass, as it were, even cares about deficits or excessive spending. Ron Paul is the exception.... He's principled about this. And is called Dr. No. Because he'll never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the constitution. That's why he remains steadfastly against the income tax etc., etc.
America is a heavily polled country. Because the business community wants to know what Americans are thinking.
And if you look at the polls, well, the majority of Americans are social democrats. So, the profound problem and the utter assault on democracy is that both parties are far to the right of the majority of Americans.
Will this democratic deficit ever be fixed??? Well, for starters, you'd need a president that's far to the left of Obama and Clinton and has a great deal of empathy for working people.
Problem with Obama: he's way to the right of the majority of Americans.
I mean, look at the opinion polls. Most Americans want to control their own labor. Most Americans want to be in a union. (But ya can't call it that because the term has been demonized. You simply say: Do you want to participate, as it were -- :)) Most Americans want higher taxes on the rich and corporations. Most Americans want universal health care. Then we'd start to see what DEMOCRACY is all about if these policies were implemented. But they're considered politically impossible.... Meaning: the business community doesn't want them. For obvious reasons. It doesn't suit their interests.
