Flaming Liberals for Centrists

[Iris]

Are there any other extreme leftists out there who see the value in having a centrist president? I, for one, am sick of the debates that pit 2 extremes against another. I would welcome some rational, educated dicussions about the important issues that are facing this country right now. I'd much rather have a centrist Democrat leading us than a neo-con Republican.

[HawkerHurricane]

1. As a aggressive moderate/centrist

Do I count?
(I guess not. But I'd rather have a extreme lefty than a extreme righty. I think the lefty would do much less damage to the country. AND we've tried extreme righties, they don't work, so...)

[rucky]

2. Within the extreme left...

...I see three personality types: The ones who want to win & see compromise as weakness. The ones who want peace, and see compromise as a strength. Then there's the ones who are more comfortable being the underdog.

Or you can look at it this way:

Group A will never let us forget our ideals, group B gets us closer to them, and group C makes sure that nobody's left behind. And we all frustrate the hell outta each other in the wonderful symbiotic process.

[Iris]

4. now that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy!

[Fixated]

3. ....

I'm not TOO extreme in my leftism, but I'm only non-liberal on a select few issues. I like centrists generally. They don't always agree with me, but they seem to make sense.

[Terwilliger]

5. How about a centrist Republican?

so many people think of GW Bush as a centrist. Woo heu!

[bryant69]

10. It's going to be tougher

for him to play that role this time around. He'll have to portray the democratic candidate as a screaming wild eyed liberal in order to make himself look like the centrist (in comparison). Perhaps that supports the theory that we do need an angry centrist candidate.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[corporalclegg9]

12. A REAL Centrist Repub would be fine

The problem is, GW only talks like a Centrist. People hear him talk and base their opinon of him on what he says, but few people bother to actually look at his actions.

I'll admit, it's a great strategy, so kudos to Rove. Most people have no idea how far to the right Bush is. Pefect example is Bush's "support" for the assault weapons ban with the help of Tommy DeLay who wouldn't bring it to vote.

I want to know what happened to the Centrist Republicans who were bitching and moaning about the deficit in the 90's. Why aren't they still bitching and moaning now?

[CWebster]

6. combination

Acceptible compromise to achieve the goal of overcoming the Bush junta but there is a limit to the compromise. On candidates who participated in enabling the present state of affairs--no sell-out.

[TahitiNut]

7. How about a Wellstone leftist?

:shrug:


Oh, for the extremely short-of-memory, try to recall the years between 1992 and 2001 when a 'centrist' Democrat was assailed with all manner of lies and slanders without respite or hesitation. :puke:

So much for that idea. (sheesh)

[no name no slogan]

8. Speaking as a "Wellstone Democrat"

I can firmly say "no", most centrists are useless. Mainly because a compromise between a centrist and a rightist will typically give your a center-right solution.

I see nothing wrong with being a leftist who's willing to compromise-- but I can also see where one should "stick to ones guns" on issues that are important.

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

[noiretextatique]

9. sick of the debates that pit 2 extremes against another

which "debates" are you talking about? your post is incomprehensible to me, to be honest. i don't see the equivalent of faux news or any of the right-leaning media on the left side of the spectrum, for example. the "debate" then, is skewed to the right, and considering the skew, what are "centrists"...really? we NEED a big move to the left to get back to anything approaching the center.

[Tinoire]

13. Well said!!!

we NEED a big move to the left to get back to anything approaching the center

[Iris]

14. Mainly, I was thinking about topics like The Patriot Act and

Late-term abortion where the facts and discussions get overlooked because of extremes on both ends.

[noiretextatique]

18. it still doesn't make sense

considering late-term abortion is a non-sequitur coined by right-wing fanatics to chip away at abortion rights...and that the patriot act is fascist legislation that should never have been introduced, let alone enacted. thank goodness for the true patriots who opposed it, and for those who continue to oppose it. see how the rw has hijacked to so-called "center?" capitulation to the rw is not "centrist," it's capitulation and cowardice. on another note: are you sure you're an "extreme" leftist?

[onecitizen]

11. Well, see, this just doesn't bother.......

me. It's the time during the election cycle where everyone, extreme or otherwise, are out stumping for "their" guy. I read many of the posts here and in the end, I'll make my own decision. You don't have to agree with everyone that posts here. I think ALL opinions are worthwhile and legitimate. It causes me to research and learn more about a candidate or subject matter. All worthwhile I think.

[SavageWombat]

15. Centrists?

A centrist president will only get us more of what we got from Clinton - OK government, but no progress. Especially now - a centrist will find "compromises" with the radicals running the GOP, and wind up moving us ever so slightly right. Until we get a Dem Congress, or at least Repubs that vote their conscience instead of what the Party Officers tell them to, we need a president to oppose them.

A parable by Raymond Smullyan, famous logician:

Child 1: "I'm going to eat this pie."
Child 2: "No, we should share the pie."
Child 1: "No, I want to eat the whole pie."
Child 2: "We should share the pie, half for me and half for you."
Adult: "Kids, you need to compromise - give him three-quarters of the pie."

A moderate who compromises with an extremist loses out. Against this kind of opposition, we need a pres to stick to his guns.

[Iris]

16. I'm not really refering to any specific candidate.

In fact, this candidate doesn't even exist. I'm talking about a real leader who can stand up for both sides and encourage civilized debate.

Quite honestly, I believe if there were some meaningful debate going on, many people would lean more left. In fact, there was once a whole thread about a study that found people were more liberal than they thought if only the labels were removed.

[AP]

17. I see the flaming liberalism in electing someone who comes accross

as a centrist, but is actually a flaming liberal.

Basically, to me, if you're shifting power to hte middle and working class (and lifting the poor up into the middle and working class) you are a flaming liberal.

The struggle in the world, the real political battle is between fascists trying to concentrate more wealth and power built on the backs of the middle class in the hands of the powerful, and the poeple trying make wealth and power flow the other direction.

If a politician isn't talking about that in whatever sublte or unsubtle way, the politician isn't a flaming liberal. And, if they're not talking about in a way which will actually lead to them being elected (which often means they have to be sublte, like Clinton was0 then they're idiots who don't care enough about the direction the world is headed to be clever enough to run in a way that will get them elected.

It's all very complicated. But, like Carter said, you don't run for office to make idealistic points, you run to win and make laws that make a difference (I'm totally paraphrasing -- this was his strategy for beating an idealist in the primaries who probably couldn't have won the general election).

[noiretextatique]

19. as a realist, i can get on board with this type of pragmatism

but voting for a centrist out of some misguided belief that they are more reasonable than anyone else is far too simplistic for me.

[Iris]

20. I never meant to imply a centrist would be more reasonable, but that

a centrist might be able to actually serve as a real leader in that he (or she) could be a bridge between extremes. A leader who could lead someone who is not a member of his party as well as someone who is.

[noiretextatique]

23. yeah...but, i don't see "extreme leftists"

causing the kind of problems that the rw is causing...but maybe it's just me. POWER seems to be the missing ingredient. by continuing to imply the two "extremes" have equal power, your argument still makes no sense.

[noiretextatique]

24. yeah...but, i don't see "extreme leftists"

causing the kind of problems that the rw is causing...but maybe it's just me. POWER seems to be the missing ingredient. by continuing to imply the two "extremes" have equal power, your argument still makes no sense.

[AP]

27. Some centrists are really conservative, and some are really liberal

Lots of very liberal people thought that FDR betrayed them. I think history has proven that what FDR did during the 30s and 40s was about the most flaming liberal thing you could do at that time. He fought facism at home as much as he did abroad and he won, and he won decisively.

Compare FDR to Woodrow Wilson on the League of Nations vs the United Nations. Woodrow Wilson was extremely progressive on foreign relations (which was THE centreal issue of his time). He drew heavy fire from isolationist right wingers, and because he wouldn't use the camouflage of centrism to out-manouver them (because he was so rigid in his idealism) he stroked out and the League of Nations didn't pass. The result: 5 million European Jews killed in WWII, 20 million Russians dead in Russia, and millions more dead and millions of lives destroyed.

FDR learned from Wilson's mistakes and he was much more crafty, with much of that craft coming in the form of appearing to be a centrist while creating a United Nations that was extremely progressive for its time. FDR outflanked the isolationist RW'ers. FDR won. We'll never know if FDR saved millions of lives (in the way that Wilson couldn't). However, I think it's a pretty safe bet to say that his apparent pragmitism was flaming liberalism in disguise (in, fact, there's no doubt among the right wing that FDR was the biggest, flamingest liberal ever, yet many on the left never believed it when FDR was alive).

Marian Wright Edelman's husband detested Clinton a vociferously opposed his welfare reforms. If you read The Clinton Wars, and believe Blumenthal's take on this, it is another example of the far left not understanding how centrism can be camouflage for extreme liberalism.

I don't mean to disparage Carter, who was a great man in many ways, but his centrism was, in fact, centrism that aided and abetted conservativism (unlike Clinton and FDR, or even JFK). He didn't help the middle and working class bolster its defenses against attacks from the corporate hegemony (but then again, maybe I don't know Carter's record that well -- the right wing mercilessly sabotaged his presidency and he didn't strategize his defense very well at all).

[JVS]

26. Yes this is a good idea

In 2000 one of the oddest things was that people thought that Bush and Gore were the same on the issues. It is as though they had forgotten one of the oldest rules of politics, namely that politicians lie. Bush falsely portrayed himself as a compassionate conservative (i.e centrist) Gore was genuinely a centrist. We need to be able to BS them the same way.

[Mairead]

21. I think there are probably more than the 2 choices you call out

Me, I'm going to hold out for someone who will totally reverse course, not rearrange the deck chairs.

[Iris]

22. but I don't think it would take all that much to reverse course.

Bush is so extreme.

[JVS]

25. no

centrist presidents just make it easier for extremists to roll back the progress made. Clinton was an centrist and the right wing hatred and backlash were as great as if he had been Lenin. And we sure didn't get the work of a Lenin out of him. Centrists draw just as much fire and return less of it, so to hell with them.

[w4rma]

28. I am a progressive Democrat who is supporting a centrist Dem for President

I don't believe that a radical leftist can win the U.S. Presidential election. Also, I'd rather elect someone who isn't a radical, whose positions are fairly well understood by Americans, who will make progress and who will help folks understand our government instead of trying to ram something through in secret or otherwise that folks don't support.

Democracy requires that our government be open and well understood. You can't push radical policy through the government without trying to hide it somehow.

[ulysses]

29. but define "radical leftist", Rick

I would agree that someone as far to the left as George W. Bush is to the right probably wouldn't be elected right now, but that's more a function of 23 years of unanswered slime thrown at anything remotely "liberal" than it is of any inherent conservatism in the American psyche (the fact that we're all raised to think we're cowboys noted).

So, that "radical leftist" thing. Chomsky? No, he probably won't ever be elected president, but I'd (admiringly) call him a radical. What's your definition?

[janekat]

30. Amen!!! We're in a State of Emergency...

in this country.

I'm to the LEFT of being liberal and I say we need to do whatever it takes to get those bastards out of there. They're destroying our country - if NOT the world. We can't let them continue to destory the environment - and to pack the entire court system with right wing judges. People will not notice these things for maybe years to come but they will affect all of us PERSONALLY.

THESE are the two most dangerous things that no-one seems to talk about or to be concerned about that are SLOWLY happening.

[DemBones DemBones]

31. I hate to see progressives tacking toward the right, instead of

helping less politically knowledgeable people to see that they only think they're moderates or conservatives, that they actually believe in many progressive ideas.

At this juncture, people need to understand what neoconservatism is, and I don't think the word's getting out. The neocons are not Rockefeller Republicans, or even Eisenhower Republicans. They're not even Goldwater Republicans. They are evil whackos who want an American empire and will do anything to get what they want. And centrists will give them too much of what they want.