I, along with much of FDL, am often painted by both the media and the Obama administration as on the outer-left-wing of political thought—a group of progressive extremists well outside the mainstream.
The reality is both far more boring and sad. Recent polling has caused me to go issue by issue to examine public support for the reforms I care most about. I found almost all of them have extremely broad popular support with the American people. In the traditional sense of the word, my brand of radical progressivism is boringly centrist.
Deficit Reduction
On the issue of deficit reduction, I strongly oppose cuts to Social Security and changes to Medicare that hurt senior citizens instead of negotiating better rates from providers. My top-two fixes to the deficit are a more progressive income tax and cutting defense spending.
Progressive income tax – Vanity Fair/60 Minutes found 61 percent think the first step to reducing the deficit should be taxing the rich, 20 percent felt it should be defense cuts, and only 3 percent feel the way to trim the deficit is to cut Social Security.
No cuts to Social Security – A GfK Roper poll for AARP found that 85 percent of Americans oppose cutting Social Security to reduce the deficit. Similarly, a Gallup poll found that requiring richer Americans to pay Social Security taxes on all wages was by far the most popular way to “fix” the system.
War
Afghanistan – It is not just some left-wing fringe but the entire country that has turned against the war in Afghanistan that we have been waging for nearly a decade. According to new a CNN poll 63 percent of Americans now oppose this war.
Banking
Auditing the Federal Reserve – A remarkably centrist issue that only the banksters seems to oppose. A Rasmussen poll found an overwhelming 79 percent in support of regular audits.
Health Care
Ideally, I wanted to see the nation adopt a Medicare-for-All program which was declared too radical to even debate by President Obama and top congressional Democrats. I was willing to compromise for a public option with strong cost controls.
Medicare for All – According to a July 2009 Kaiser Family Foundation poll (PDF) this proposal was favored by roughly 50 to 58 percent of Americans. A solid centrist majority for a position declared “too radical” and “extremist.”
Public option – A public option, my compromise position on health care, still polled at super-majority 60 percent support in a December 2009 Reuters poll, despite a hundred million dollar campaign against it.
Drug re-importation – In 2005, the Kaiser Family Foundation found an amazing 77 percent supported drug re-importation, and it still was not included in the new health care law.
Political Reform
Reduce gerrymandering – Last year, California and Florida voters approved anti-gerrymandering ballot initiatives with over 60 percent support.
Reducing corporate spending on elections – According to the Washington Post, I fall right in line with the remarkable 80 percent who opposed the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning limits on corporate campaign spending, and I’m clearly with the 72 percent who want the limits re-instated. I also feel as 77 percent of the country does that corporate election spending is effectively an attempt to bribe politicians.
Gay Rights
Ending “Don’t ask, don’t tell” – With 75 percent support for allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military, this position couldn’t be more mainstream.
Gay marriage – This is one of the few positions I hold strongly that lacks super-majority support, but it is hardly fringe. A CNN poll found 49 percent in support, a Pew poll found 42 percent support, and a Washington Post poll found 47 percent support.
Marijuana Reform
Medical marijuana – Despite only a handful of members of Congress willing to publicly support medical marijuana, it polls better than almost any other undecided issue in politics. An ABC News poll found an overwhelming 81 percent supported legalizing marijuana for medical use. That makes it one of the most centrist issues in modern politics.
Marijuana legalization – Like gay marriage, marijuana legalization is probably the only other big issue I strongly advocate for that currently does not have popular support well above the 50-percent mark. Yet, like gay marriage, the polls show it is hardly fringe, with support for it just under a majority. According to the latest Gallup poll, 46 percent of Americans support legalization while 50 percent oppose.
Other Issues
There are many smaller issues I advocate for that probably don’t have majority support, like instant run-off voting, switching states to unicameral legislatures, using “all-payer” on the new health care exchanges, officially putting the Fed entirely under government control, and increasing the size of the House of Representatives. But, I suspect that is mainly due to them being fairly arcane issues with little public understanding. While they probably lack broad support, I suspect also lack much opposition.
It is possible that there is some big issues on which my positions are truly radical, by which I mean only 25 percent of the country agrees with me, but I frankly can’t think of them.
Despite being dismissed as an extremist left-winger by even this Democratic administration, there is hardly an important issue I support that doesn’t have fairly strong popular support. The few that do lack majority support, like gay marriage and marijuana legalization, just barely miss the mark.
The boring truth is this radical progressive’s beliefs almost all fall right inline with the broad center of regular working class Americas. The sad thing is how successfully this combination of truly mainstream centrist positions have been depicted as fringe leftism.





68 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
And unfortunately Jon, it’s people who are supposed to be on our side in the media who promote this right-wing meme. I was listening to Earl Ofari Hutchinson this weekend and he said the nation is center right. I almost went nuts.
Most of us who pay attention know that’s not true. A poll might say more people call themselves center or conservative but on the issues as you illustrate, they’re liberal. The problem comes when even so-called liberals spread the center right myth!
It just goes to show you that Washington DC has lurched to the right and taken their toady media but none of the rest of us, with them.
It’s easy when you control the narrative and your “competition” is in bed with you.
Heh, it’s really hard for those talking heads to explain why conservatives really aren’t conservative and the Librals aren’t libral.
If they took the time to think about it, then Progressives wouldn’t appear like some fanatical far wing of left. But, then again that would take some brain power and a completely different media set up.
A child could tell you: a center-right nation wouldn’t have Social Security.
The other way to frame this is to point out that liberal or progressive views are supported by strong majorities, and that what the self described centrists want are not centrist at all. They are far to the right and their self description is false. And what the self described right wing wants is completely off the charts, quite often the opposite. Imposing their views is an extreme result, and clearly anti democratic.
Framed the way, it then becomes clear that the MSM and most of Congress hold extreme views that are soundly rejected by a majority of Americans. it’s not true on all issues, but on most of the ones you list, it is.
Admit it. The plutocrats will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the “center.” If they aren’t willing to be dragged then leave them behind in the dust. That’s what the Egyptians are doing with their ruling elites. All power ultimately resides in the people.
Mike Stark punks Rush Limbaugh: “Rush Limbaugh chats w/me about Ronald Reagan’s legacy” (4 Feb 2011 ; audio with transcript). Crooks and Liars gives the pith of Rush’s final response.
Jon, FWIW I agree with your positions 100%. I am less intense about legalization of marijuana than I would have been 20 years ago, probably because at age 68 I no longer have much interest in it, although I’ve used it “socially” off and on over the years.
Because I was so outspoken about my disillusionment with Obama, my sister accused me a year ago of being a “left wingnut” — way on the fringe. On my recent visit, we carefully avoided discussing politics, but I wonder if she’s seen the light in the intervening months…
It’s infuriating to me; just hanging on to what we have, much less driving the political scene leftward is an unbelievably difficult task.
Last year, even the act of marching into Bennet’s office demanding he keep the promise HE made about the Public Option was RIDICULED! I just couldn’t believe what I was seeing, but there it was.
Yep – mere fundamentals are boring; but vital.
Exactly. social Security, and the basic premise of Medicare, as obligations of government to act in the common interest, are clearly progressive ideas. And Americans approve of these progressive ideas by huge margins.
If Obama feels so strongly about being a centrist politician, why did he not run as one in 2008?
Does the WH plan on winning in 2012, by acting like a republican?
the facts are OBAMA lied all the way to the WH
Obama acts like we are going to forget his actions in Office, Obama kills the PO in July and acts like he is for it in Septemeber.
Are Dems Senators up for re-election in 2012 going to mention OBAMACARE on the campaign trail? NO
Coming Soon! Con Man OBAMA will re-appear to get re- elected in 2012 , and act like he is a FDL Cheerleader!
Sort of a nice depiction of the Overton window, which the media and the rightwingers keep pushing to the right.
Correct, and my opinion is that SS/Medicare along with voting is the only two things left we have that keeps us active and a part of our government. The vote is continually under attack just like SS.
We have to fight back constantly or become non-entities in our government.
This statement is false.
This is why I think the media will be the last group on earth to frame outside the conservative vs liberal dichotomy. It serves their needs for conflict, for he said-she said, and for the “view from nowhere” (put a trademark on that for Jay Rosen). And, it’s also why I think that the conservative vs liberal framework is going to be the most difficult to circumvent; it offers fantastic cover for those activities/policies which reinforce the status quo for our elite. Peeling back the mask of conservative vs liberal [solved by some so-called bipartisan centrism] is one of the primary obstacles to promoting the general welfare. Like an array of other cancers, it has a good chance of killing its host.
Amazing that some people can see through this rubbish with such clarity. How come they can do it and the others don’t see it?
I said this earlier on another thread, so forgive me repeating myself. A big part of the problem is that probably a majority of the populace is not tuned in and informed about the issues as well as we are here at FDL. What seems so obvious to us is brand new to many.
I found myself having to explain single-payer to an otherwise intelligent former colleague in a Facebook discussion recently. He confessed that “single payer” was a new term to him. I pointed him to a website that describes it, and he came back with a concern about keeping his doctor, and whether he would get top medical care if doctors were paid a salary. I had to explain Medicare for all vs. the VA model.
Educating the average voter is going to be an uphill climb, in the face of the avalanche of right wing misinformation.
Maybe you are too leftwing for the democrats as are the rest of us. They know they are more right wing than us which is why the lie about what the believe when running for office, but they also know you will vote lesser evil rather than dump em for a more progressive party.
WHICH statement is false? Care to clarify?
I wasn’t going to ask. But, since you did I got your back.
Perhaps Jon, you really are not a “progressive” at all. Perhaps you are a populist.
I would like to piggy back on what U are saying.
Another HUGE ISSUE is the fact that Democrats and the President intentionally lie to the base.
I don’t know how some Journalist Sleep at night, they promote and tell lies daily.
Anderson Cooper is one of the few Journalist telling the truth about what is currently going on in Egypt!
this phony DEM WH is supporting an EVIL DICTATOR, and doing everything they can to help the evil dictator kills his people,
and at the end of day, the people of EGYPT will think progressives support TERROR, because FOX NEWS will call OBAMA a progressive.
the intelligent left need to launch an ad campaign stating that OBAMA is not a progressive, to protect the legacy of people like FDR, JFK, LBJ, and CARTER
This statement is false – a logical paradox…. fooled ya.
Just an example of how language is used to deceive.
Lakoff framing… Bernays public relations
One thing is true, those bumbleheads do get out in front of things and point fingers first. We might as well start doing what we should now. Obama is not Progressive, neither is anyone in congress.
Perhaps America is intrinsically progressive, and that’s why Jon would be a populist.
Athenae is upstairs!
Late Night: What an Anti-Journalism World Looks Like
I agree with Jon’s POV. I believe most people would, if they sat down and calmly thought about it. (But then, I may be wrong. If you described the first 10 amendements to the Constitution, without mentioning the Bill of Rights, how many Americans would endorse such things? My head spins.)
Re the MSM: How important is it nowadyas, really? Sure FOX News pulls ‘em in; but these folks still have VCR’s that blink 12:00. A lot of them don’t buy green bananas. I don’t get news from teevee, nor do my friends. You? Glenn Beck’s ratings might’ve been inflated because everyone else has moved on.
Or maybe the word progressive is just a bullshit term used by liberals that are too ashamed to be known as liberals. It isn’t a dirty word. Real liberals care and share. Progressive? Just a word. So many can fall into that progressive term, that it loses it’s meaning. Hell we got rich fatcat idiots like Arianna Huffington, and rich politicians calling themselves progressive.
Sorry, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m just dense I guess…but I don’t get it and I don’t know Bernays at all.
When you view the world from the right wing, all of those centrist issues look like hippie/commie/left wingnut stuff. These days regular conservatives are called centrists and crazy right wingers are called conservatives. The media loves its labels and when you label something or someone and you repeat it often enough people buy into it.
Perhaps many have adopted “progressive” because “liberal” has evolved into an epithet in some places. I am a Unitarian Universalist, a “liberal” approach to religion, and our minister at a church I belonged to in the past had an entire sermon on the meaning of “liberal” trying to put it into a positive context — and this was more than 10 years ago.
Plus a lot of so-called “liberals” are far too centrist for many of us.
Or maybe it’s all semantics.
You are so right Jon. obama ran as a progressive because they know this country is progressive and now the problem is, democrats that keep saying we have to support Obama no matter what he does, because of fear of republicans. so the people that should be driving O left are saying keep your mouth shut or republicans get elected which allows politicians to move more and more right and represent the corporations. It was interesting to watch 2010 when the democrats realized we have to vote for them. By then they had nothing to run on except republicans are worse than us. So the left that is supporting Obama are not doing the democratic party any good.
Thankfully, if we adopt the word liberal, that could never, ever happen.
Read a quote from F. Lee Bailey a few years ago where he said that it anybody proposed the Bill of Rights today, it wouldn’t get out of committee in Congress.
You know, people have been looking for a good name for a new party. How about Populist?
Works for me.
Concur.
The first question a very good one. Barack Obama practices a most insidious sort of deception based politics.
I endorse the entire comment.
Hey, them talking heads don’t get PAID to tell the truth, and their bosses don’t get paid to tell the truth . . . n nor do their stock holders nor do the Board Of Directors or the CEO/President.
So any memes build on truth telling is like a pony with a horn on it’s head.
The reality has NOTHING to do with truth telling
It’s all about profiteering and class war.
Like trying to reason with conservatives about things that to socially minded folks are normal, it’s a waste of time.
These people will and are screwing the masses, and they are the great minority doing it to us.
What’s insane isn’t that they won’t tell the truth or listen, what’s insane is we keep talking to them instead of taking them head on and whomping their asses at every opportunity like they do ours. Let NO lie go unchallenged.
Challenge them at every opportunity. Humiliate them. Get in their face and REFUSE to let them dictate our circumstances.
An END to bipartisanship. It’s a ticket to our death.
Harumph.
/preaching choir
;-)
Thank you.
Nice Read Jon, as always, thanks.
In response to SanderO doin some kind of Obtuse mind game (n I think you got the wrong Bernays, there, hoss, if PR is the hook) . . .
If I had to name two of the most harmful people that were born and died before me but had the MOST impact on my generation:
1) Eddie B, Father Of PR.
2) Leo Strauss.
Just sayin . . . how to lie and manage mass communications and the masses.
Any word can be turned into a “bullshit term”. Milton Friedman and F. A. Hayek were “liberals” in one sense of the word. I’ll use liberal and progressive despite all the perversions that have been done to both terms. A democratic republic is progressive in terms of forms of society.
And Julius Caesar was a “populist”.
LOL
progressive and liberal are not interchangeable terms.
conservative-progressive continuum is a dimension of analysis of POWER, whereby we describe whether a policy either conserves or changes the status quo of socio-economic relations.
liberal-communitarian continuum is a dimension of analysis focused on the citizen, ie whether policy regards the citizen as an individual with rights/protections or as a member of a social group or society
if you think about these dimensions as the x and y axis…
then you have philosophical quadrants…
progressive liberal, eg. liberal democrats
conservative liberal, eg. libertarian
progressive communitarian, eg socialists or social democrats
conservative communitarian, eg republicans
Jon:
Being with the majority is obviously the defining characteristic of the centrist, but equally important is pragmatism. This is something that I think we can all learn from the boring centrists: moving the ball forward even a little is better than always wailing for the end zone – and always failing to get there. Jon, I like your play of saying look: these ideals are really very popular. Taken one at a time, they are achievable. See how easy? One little step, then another; oh, and gee, don’t look now but you’re really becoming quite progressive aren’t you? But it needs to done one issue at a time, starting with the most palpable. I think you know where I’m going with this. You will instantly lose 90% of America if you start by talking about marijuana reform and Gay marriage. Instead, take a page from the centrist playbook and focus on just one goal, say deficit reduction. Let’s provide solid proposals for reducing the deficit so the Republicans don’t end up defining the issue. Don’t let the discussion get off that topic. Can we do it? Can we actually effect some kind of change here?
vinny:
WTF?
That’s right. Our positions are mainstream. Thus, it would be more accurate to call us mainstream progressives. Centrist is a label for those between the right and far wacko right. Thus, wacko centrist.
There’s nothing boring about the humanists from the Radical Middle.
http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2007/10/radical-middle
The basic reason the Dems/Repugs are center right is because that is where the money resides.
Our CORPORATIONS have the money and own our POLITICIANS and MEDIA(Advertising money). That is why there is such a disconnect.
It will take a massive march on Washington to make a simple demand.
“GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS.” Our next Presidential Election will cost close to a $TRILLION DOLLARS$.
SOMEONE IS BUYING INFLUENCE AND IT IS NOT the “little people.”
WHERE IS A TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADER TO LEAD “WE THE PEOPLE?”
The author stated: “In the traditional sense of the word, my brand of radical progressivism is boringly centrist.”
There is nothing even remotely radical in anything he expressed. In fact, “liberal” views are a major part of the problems we face. I saw no mention of class war in the article. I saw no mention of rich-get-richer government.
Does the author actually believe that progressive taxation will remedy the problem? The gap between rich and poor, even with sharply-sloped progressive tax rates, will, nevertheless, continue to grow.
Capitalism is a system that values investors over workers. It is a system that, at its core, chooses profits over people and profits over the environment and profits over quality of life and profits over democracy itself. Capitalism and democracy cannot co-exist.
The author has spelled out a laundry list of liberal goals and policies. All of them are fine. All of them are even important. None of them is possible or sustainable under a system designed to create a wealthy, elite ruling class.
Until that battle is joined, “radical” changes are not possible.
I suspect that not getting sidelined by useless wedge issues that prevent us from making common-cause with large swaths of other people would go a long way in seeing popular support turn into popular governance. Getting mired in them is what gives credibility to the idea that we’re “The Other” and provides the basis for the narrative that whatever we think must be extreme.
It was embarrassing and illustrative to see FDL, and much of its readership, tripping over itself in the race to lead the knee-jerk “liberal” crusade on completely pointless and hypocritical “gun-control.”
Knowing next to nothing about an issue, building on a logical foundation of sand, and irrational emotional red meat appeals were clearly not purely the property of the right.
Excellent post.
It’s all in the labeling. When asked to self define their political stance, most people default to “center” simply because they do not like to be classified as deviating from the norm and they perceive themselves to be “normal” or “average” – just a regular guy.
But on specific issues, people trend overwhelmingly towards what is labeled “liberal” or “left” by what is actually a far right conservative corporatist media.
The major problems for politicians arises when they are forced during election campaigns to vocalize specifics of what they are putatively for or against, which then, to their increasing horror, what with youtube and the internet and all, is preserved for posterity.
No one in recent history, in my opinion, has run as consciously duplicitous a campaign as Barack Obama who pretended to be for almost every single policy he has actually worked behind the scenes to disappear, negate or water down.
I still can’t wait to see how he addresses all the disparities in the next campaign. All any opponent of his, left right or center, has to ask is the question: “Why would you believe this guy this time?”
Ahhhhh. The Center! Safe, secure, sensible, and sane. Besides – Centrist sounds better than Fascist.
Kucinich won the blind polls on the issues during the primaries. IMHO he would have won the general election and by a larger margin than Obama. If there was such a thing as a Centrist it would be Kucinich.
But the Democrats wanted Obama. The Democrats, not the country, are center right.
e tu, Hektor?
:o)
Don’t really have anything to add beyond saying, excellent piece Jon.
This is very instructive in a boring way, like, it should be so obvious. Thanks for doing this, your pen to the Senate’s ear. Also.
Jon, the Bolsheviks would have seen you and all the rest of the staff at FDL as liberal democrats or mensiveks and would have had you all sent to a gulag. To the fascist / corporatist though you are of course dangerous radical communists / socialist/ liberals / progressives ( same thing to them). It’s all a matter of perspective.
The pols I know all tell me it’s like this, they work hard to get elected and expect someone to pay them for their effort. This is the prevailing reason today’s pols act like they do. Occasionally u get a wealthy one that doesn’t need to get Corp. $$, but they’re usually on an ego trip, which is just as bad in most instances. The Corp. interests give because it’s a business decision. If they don’t the competition will. This is the Gov’t Barry Zero runs, it’s an auction of sorts. Power goes to the highest bidders. He went to the Chamber yesterday as a business man peddling his product. I think he was telling these guys look help me or be on the outs when I win in 2012 because the candidates you support are going to lose. It’s business and we are not even invited to the auctions because frankly $$ is the only thing that talks ( shouts) in DC and most State Capitals as well.
madma@35.
I too have to agree with Jon and as well as with you.
If you “compare and contrast” the agenda of the white Progressive and the Progressive that resides within the Native American/Chicano Construct, there are some minor differences. But when the differences become “major” or “Highly Important”. Then this Highly Important commences from the Standpoint for “Empowering the Individual”. Thusly, FDR, Truman, LBJ, and Jimmy Carter, are the Iconic Symbols for the Native American/Chicano Construct. And yes, Jimmy Carter! To wit, he established America’s iconic status for Human Rights but only after written and advocated by Arizona’s then Governor, Raul Castro and Coretta Scott King. A fact not much known or appreciated by the white Progressive Community.
And when looking to the future, the demographics trends will require the white Progressive Community to align itself more closely with the Native American/Chicano Construct, otherwise, the white Progressive will become overtly subsumed or consumed by Diversity. And therefore, “losing” Identity.
Jaango
Robespierre was a pretty boring centrist as well. His day job was as an attorney specializing in property rights, and more narrowly the tax exempt status granted by purchased patents of nobility, out in Arras. His political views at the outset were quite cautious, and he supported the monarchy even after the Flight to Varennes.
He got to preside over the Terror because the conservatives of his day, the machers of the ancien regime, refused to allow any moderate and centrist solutions. For years the moderate centrists practically begged them to allow a constitutional monarchy, but the power brokers of the ancien regime insisted on using their veto points to insure that nothing moderate could succeed.
The powers that be today in the US are similarly adept at gaming the system to block what the majority of the country wants and needs. They have bound the old policy non-solutions so rigidly into the framework of the process, that they have insured that we can’t have progress on substance without sweeping away the process.
There is absolutely no need for progressives to plot revolution. It would be counterproductive if we did. At this point, it is fairly clear that the conservatives will give us a revolution, will insist on it, despite the best efforts of moderate centrists to save them from themselves.
Well, Jon, thank you for finally admitting that you’re no progressive. It is heartening that you’re finally telling some of the truth. Now go all the way and admit that there is no such thing as a fixed political center and that your politics — especially the highly monarchistic desire to eliminate democratic government in favor of an even tighter and more exclusive (and far less democratic) oligarchy than we suffer one — place you on the right. There’s no point holding back and hiding behind the phony label of “centrist”.
Because this is really the problem facing the left: Identifying and expunging the pretenders so that the movement itself may grow and flourish. As long as right-wingers are allowed to continue dominating the movement, it will remain forever impotent, disorganized, and weak. The right-wingers need to stop faking progressive credentials and officially join the GOP. This charade of claiming progressive positions while denying them in the same breath, and working to undermine any and all hint of independent progressive political action before it can begin, only serves to maintain the status quo. If you want to call yourself a progressive or a liberal, you MUST stop running away from the label, and you MUST CONSISTENTLY support progressive ideals; principles are not something you can discard when they become inconvenient, and then embrace once they become convenient again.
The problem with this approach is that it is an utter failure. Baby steps, meaningless tweaks around the edges of frayed curtains good only for compost, result in only one thing: the complete and total reversal once the Republicans retake official power. Clinton took baby steps, never fundamentally changing the nation’s course away from its descent into fascism, and Bush, Jr. came in and undid almost all of it, if not all of it. And Clinton actually rammed through many extreme right-wing policies (such as the 1996 Telecommunications Act and the gutting of welfare) that the GOP could only dream of doing.
baby steps achieve absolutely nothing in the long run. They hinder progress and maintain the status quo.
Progressivism is real, and is it distinct from liberalism. David Sirota wrote far more eloquently about them than I can, but the basic argument is that there are key differences. Liberals will spout platitudes and maybe throw money at a problem, and probably use what amounts to bribery to get large business interests to do what they should already be doing, like imposing higher fuel efficiency in automobiles and practicing safer drilling methods. But they will otherwise leave the current system intact, uncomfortable with confronting and opposing too strongly the power of the corporations. Progressives, on the other hand, have no problem whatsoever using the power of government to impose rules and regulations upon those large business interests in order to protect the public interest.
What the public believes matters only during the general elections; after that, it only matters what the elected officials believe.
You failed in 2008 and 2010 to elect people to Congress in sufficient majorities who agreed with your positions, and in the Senate that number was 60 Senators taking the oaths on January 3, 2009 who agreed with you. Instead, even if all Democrats agreed with you along with the independents, that was only 58 Senators.
Certainly you can try to change the minds of Republicans in the Congress, but I doubt you will be very successful.
A much better strategy is organizing for the 2012 election cycle to elect the right kind of people to Congress and the White House.
I would remind you of the 90s Tea Party movement that defeated HW Bush and elected Clinton by running Ross Perot. That was a great example of a wing of a party forgetting who the opposition is and electing the opposition.
And let’s be clear that Clinton probably created a much higher level of debt today by forcing Republicans to balance the budget with tax hikes and cuts to their sacred cows of Republican military pork barrel spending. They were like starved fat people who binged once Clinton was gone.
What is needed today are tax hikes to create jobs – tax cuts reliably kill jobs. But no tax cut should be passed without lots of Republican support and votes because they will campaign for office to cut taxes, and as a result kill jobs again and massively increase the deficit again. The next two years should be hammering at Republicans on jobs and deficits, while making sure voters oppose cuts to Social Security which does not have a problem compared to defense and health care spending. And hammer on every problem the decaying infrastructure causes for business and prevents hiring. Roads blocked by snow; power interrupted by weather breaking the grid (like in Texas), detours from failed bridges (like in Pawlenty’s Minneapolis in 2008), levies failing, etc.
Voters are only going to vote in reaction to their economic condition in 2012 and they will vote Republican if Republicans aren’t held accountable for creating jobs.
This is side-splitting funny! Impose discipline and some sound policy on the Goopers, and you are buying trouble, you commie!
More, please!
The Republicans know this, and that’s why Boehner et al, are quickly framing the Democrats as piling on debt, knowing full well the hypocrisy and prevarication in this charge. Dems, of course, cataleptic.
I was thinking of Wittgenstein and Walter Lippman, but I didn’t want to go there.
I agree there are differences, and I like the way Sirota distinguishes them (although I might put it slightly more charitably than you did). Lakoff is helpful here too. At the very least, since people like that have spent a good deal of time offering reasons for chewing the word Progressive, it seems reasonable than people who wants to claim that it is nothing more than callowness might try to dispute what they wrote.
It strikes me that the substantive reasons why we prefer one word over the other are worth discussing.