I’m a Pragmatic Centrist BECAUSE I’m Far Left.

[johnaries]

I want Change. I support goals that are considered “far left”.

But I’m not stupid. I know that the goals I seek will not be implemented overnight. I also know that there is a great danger if those same goals are not implemented thoughtfully and correctly.

I am more than familiar with the concept of “3 steps forward, 2 steps back” and I know that means a step forward.

Therefore, I am a Progressive because I support any move forward. Even if it is not as much as I had wished - because we fought hard just to make that single step.

I will have to admit that I have known some Liberal “wannabes”. They wear the badge of “leftist” because it holds some kind of social status for them. They are never satisfied with any victory, because it’s never “leftist” enough for them. Because they are always more “Liberal” than you are and are determined to prove it. These Leftist “wannabes” hold the rest of us back because any step forward is just not good enough for them. They are just as obstructive to true progressives as Republicans are.

I believe in Progress. Even if it’s just “baby steps”.

{donning flame retardant suit}

[tabatha]

1. ditto

Rather like the boiled frog.

[pnwmom]

2. K & R. n/t

[WCGreen]

3. People forget that the Far right has been on a mission since the early

60's. When Goldwater went down in flames they decided on a new tactic, a new approach and by god they have stuck to it.

It took them until Newt was able to articulate what was wrong in DC with his cynical 10 step pledge and took over congress for the first time in decades.

If they take it back this year, it will be one of the shortest turn around in modern history.

If they take it back this year, they will make sure we are in the wilderness as close to permanently as they can.

[impik]

4. Excellent post. Very well done. Finally, someone who gets it

[readmoreoften]

13. Coming from someone who sides with BP over the scientists at Florida State University

as to who should have excess to the spill, I'd consider your approval a personal insult.

[Forkboy]

5. But I fear we're only taking one step forward for each two we take back.

And Bush took us back about 8,000 steps. x(

[FrenchieCat]

6. Your math is off....

and that's too bad.

The Government is currently busy taking steps forward,
unfortunately, it is the ungrateful Americans,
who keep taking steps back...cause for many of them,
if they can't have it all, then "some" counts for nothing.
It's that entitled greedy mentality....thinking erroneously that we can
go from getting nothing but shit, to getting our cake and eating it too,
and being unable to appreciate anything in between.

[Forkboy]

8. In my 42 years it seems as if almost everything has only gotten worse.

Not everything, but most things. For me, my family, my friends, and those I see everyday in my town.

Were we ungrateful when Bush was in office? How about Reagan or Nixon? Blaming the victim is tacky at best, flatout twisted at worst. I'm glad your life has improved so much that it's all wine and roses for you. The next time you try to walk in another's shoes will be the first time.

[Prism]

10. "ungrateful Americans"

My! What can I do to earn all that privilege?

Frenchie, I don't think you have any idea how many tens of millions of Americans don't even have "some" right now, much less cake. You may be comfortable - and by your own words, you are far more comfortable than most of us - and you may adore this President because your pastor worked with him during the campaign.

But not everyone is in that kind of privileged position.

The Marie Antoinette moments are seriously disconnected from all reality - and from most Americans' lives on the ground.

[ShortnFiery]

16. And how about those "ungrateful Afghan citizens?" = three steps backward in CIVIL LIBERTIES

thanks to the extension of the Patriot Act and ongoing EXPENSIVE military occupations.

If what you describe above is NOW considered "far left" then I sure as hell am not IDing with that.

Again, where we're going with this Executive Branch is "three steps back, one step forward."

That's regression not progression.

[Prism]

19. The phrase just blows me away

"Ungrateful Americans"

17% underemployment.

Ungrateful Americans.

Wow. I mean, what a mindset that reveals.

[QC]

23. Well, it's not quite as bad as saying that it would be awful if terrorists attacked

because that would damage the president's public approval rating.

Or that oil drilling accidents in the Gulf of Mexico would only affect people in so-called "red states."

I thought I had seen everything....

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cowpunk]

86. You were eating nothing but shit before Obama

Now you're only eating shit 6 days a week.

How can you not be grateful?

[mkultra]

106. blaming Obama for that is foolish

And claiming that he "hasn't done enough" puts you right back in the position she is talking about. The fact is that he HAS taken steps to help and it is helping.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. The empathy free choir

The President is opposed to equal rights for all humans, he says God loves his kind better than others. He says my family are strangers to one another.
You were saying?

[Cowpunk]

85. Here's what I don't get

Your title.

How can the math be off if you admit that the Bush era was a massive setback and that ungrateful, greedy scum like me were getting "nothing but shit" until Obama led us out of the wilderness?

What awesome things happened during the Clinton years that anyone could decribe as three steps forward, while seeing the G. W. Bush years as a mere two steps back? In my opinion the good things that did happen under Clinton pale in comparison to the wreckage wrought by Republican rule.

Or do you see Obama's cautious steps forward as far greater in magnitude than Clinton's?

I'd like to know what kind of equations you are using.

[Prism]

9. Easily counted, too

Health insurance +1
Mandated premiums with inadequate subsidies -1
Locked into a for-profit mandated system that leaves rising costs unaddressed - 1

Withdrawing from Iraq +1
Staying a little longer -1
Ramping up Afghanistan -100

Hospital visitation for LGBT families +1
Pressuring Congress to leave DADT alone -1
Pushing DOMA into an unknown second term or beyond -1 (- my family)

Climate change bill +1
Off shore drilling -1
Exempting companies from environmental standards just before an oil spill! -1 (game over)

And on and on and on and on. As long as you're only counting that one step forward, things are amazing. You think to yourself "Look at all these steps!"

But not everyone tossed out their calculators on January 20th, 2009.

[Unvanguard]

35. Well, it is the marginal effect.

So the question is, if we refused to support more moderate political movements, would we be taking three steps back for every one forward?

Not particularly a pleasant prospect either way, sure, but you get what you can and live with it, ultimately.

[mkultra]

105. its foolish to believe we have actually gone backwards

Sorry, but that is just ridiculous.

[Forkboy]

108. Were you alive from 2000 to 2008?

How far back do you think Bush took us?

[mkultra]

109. way back. But we are talking about current movement

not comparative movement.

[TheWraith]

7. Amen. Kicked and recommended.

Having a temper tantrum and going home because you didn't get what you wanted on the first try is not the key to political power. Politics is the slow boring of hard boards. It might take ten years, or twenty, or thirty before I see some of the things I want to see, like an end to the drug war. But I'm not giving up just because one election and 18 months of a good President didn't do it all.

[Fruittree]

11. Thank you and agreed!!

[readmoreoften]

12. Really? How's that workin' out for ya? Your pragmatism isn't very pragmatic.

So far, you're not doing much except moving the center to the right by capitulating with idiots: now "charter schools", faith-based initiatives, apprehension about LGBT rights, and Goldman Sachs are seen as "the far left" of this country. Heckuva job, Pragmatist!

Funny, the right wing has the opposite approach: aim for the center-right using an extreme right position--pull the country to the right by calling the far right the center. And that's why they're winning.

Me, I'm a "pragmatic" far leftist hoping to pull this country to the center by showing the world that there *actually is* viable opposition to the right. Only an "extreme left" can pull this country to the center.

Thirty-five or forty years ago, Obama's policies would've been considered Republican.

[Unvanguard]

43. That isn't even the question, though.

johnaries didn't make any of those decisions; the ones which actually count as a meaningful portrayal of policy were made by other people, i.e. the Democratic leadership.

The tactical issue you present is a real one; I'm not sure the answer is as simple as you think it is. Regardless, however, the question is not "Should progressives push politics to the left by loudly expressing and standing up for our beliefs?", but rather "Should progressives be willing to support improvements in the right direction, and the people who bring them about, even if they are still quite far away from where we'd like them to be?"

These are independent issues. People on the left can, and should, try our best to expand the contours of political debate, but in no way does this involve, or is this even served by, refusing to support Democrats.

[jefferson_dem]

14. Well put.

Thanks! :thumbsup:

[fasttense]

15. RepubliCONS were able to get most of what they wanted

with smaller majorities than the Democrats have now.

Funny how the left has to be pragmatic but I see no such notions on the right.

The right wing nuts want what they want, and they want it NOW.

The left wants it but will take any crumb, any little bit that might resemble a leftward change, and if they have to wait another 30 years to get it, by George they'll wait.

Isn't it about time we grew up and started taking adult steps?

[CTLawGuy]

18. There are several explainations for the distinction between Bush and Obama's success

In order of significance:

First, 9/11. The presidential goodwill flowing from 9/11 basically killed any effective opposition to George Bush, from the media, from Democrats, from nearly anyone with influence--ESPECIALLY in the areas of foreign policy and national security. Almost NO ONE heard any opposition to the war in Iraq from any widely disseminated source, for example. This lasted until about 05'-'06, nearly halfway through Bush's second term. This benefit was never of course bestowed upon Obama.

Second, the Democrats did not have a policy of "filibuster everything". They weren't filibustering the VERY CONSIDERATION of bills, which, until recently, I had no idea you could do. That abuse of the filibuster would be left to the Republican minority to do in 2009 onward.

Third, there are more conservatives than liberals in America. I know people may be upset about that, but the numbers don't lie. (Also, just because a large number of people agree on a particular liberal position on one issue doesn't make them all ideological liberals, so don't bring up that argument) Neither group is a majority, even of non-politically-apathetic citizens, but conservatives kinda have us beat. They have a larger pool to draw leaders from. As a result, their caucus is more ideologically narrow than ours is because they rely less on moderates.

Four, conservatism is a more simplistic philosophy than liberalism. It does not take a lot of brainpower to be a conservative. When conservatives are in power, they are not engineering complex government solutions to problems, instead, when their solutions does not happen to be "do nothing" (which it is a lot) it's something simple that there is not a lot of room for disagreement on, like cutting taxes, or starting wars. You cut taxes, for whom? how much? You go to war, against whom? That's about it. With liberals, our solutions are complex and leave a lot of room for disagreement. Take health care. Single payer/public option/no public option? how do you control costs? What level should subsidies be at? what should be covered? What new regulations of insurance companies should be enacted? What premiums, if any, should be charged? etc. Inevitably, you end up with the least common denominator.

[QC]

24. Five: Bush's highest goal in life was not making Democrats love him.

Let's not forget that one.

[CTLawGuy]

80. Is that Obama's goal?

or is it to distinguish himself from Republicans in that he is willing to work across the aisle and they are not.

By your logic he should have vetoed HCR because no Rs voted for it.

[dflprincess]

83. In his effort to please Republicans, he let every real reform be

bargained out of the insurance scam that was foisted on us - and the Republicans still didn't vote for it.

Letting the people who got him elected get screwed just to prove the Republicans won't work across the aisle doesn't seem all that "pragmatic" to me. He needs to stop playing Charlie Brown to the Republican's Lucy and decide if he wants them to love him or if he wants to actually stand for something and make life better for more Americans.

[CTLawGuy]

92. That was done for people like Lieberman

and Nelson, and Landrieu, not for Republicans.

Unless you want to name me ONE provision that had 60 votes and was taken out to "please Republicans".

[LaydeeBug]

17. But we CAN AGREE that they are just baby steps, right?

baby steps. Barefoot on a gravel road teeny tiny steps. So please 'scuse me when I do not submit that just because I'd like to pick up the pace a bit (or a lot) that makes me a 'fake liberal'.

Baby steps. And we need to get a long country mile by midterms. Mmmm-Hmmmm.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

20. K&R!!!! I wish more of us liberals were as pragmatic...and patient!! n/t

[ShortnFiery]

25. Many of us feel these words are subject to different interpretations:

Mine:

Liberal = Partisan Establishment Democrat.

Pragmatic = Absolutely loyal and supportive of all Executive Branch Decisions. Avidly researching data that supports their every move. Call ALL these actions, "progressive" and/or "forward thinking."

Patient = Even when it hurts the working class, laud higher insurance premiums and taxes as our "patriotic duty." As more and more Americans are falling into abject poverty, claim that they need to be "more patient" as the banksters and warmongering corporations fleece the government. Stand-by in support as our Social Security Benefits are cut to further enrich the upper 1%.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

32. An interesting dichotomy. I'm actually prepared not to support any Democrat

unless he/she is truly a progressive who stands firm on liberal/progressive principles. Day by day that's becoming harder and harder. I live in Maryland and Van Hollen is my congressman. He calls himself "liberal" but his policies demonstrate otherwise.

The only progressives here in this state that I'm proud of are Donna Edwards and Elijah Cummings. Senator Ben Cardin has been with the working people from Day 1.

[Unvanguard]

42. What's the deal with Van Hollen?

I used to live around there; always took him to be a fairly liberal Democrat, like the politics of his district.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

65. The district is pretty liberal, but he did support the invasion of Iraq.

I am also disturbed that he is supporting more moderate Dems over progressive ones, following the president's lead.

[mkultra]

107. vote for the best availble

Or run yourself. Not voting is the zenith of stupidity.

[RichGirl]

21. Thank you!

I've been trying to explain this to many people. I can be a progressive, far left liberal and still be REASONABLE.

A more flame inducing statement would be to explain that far left and far right may be different in belief, but are the same in character...they want it exactly their way and NOW. And they don't even consider the possibility that those in government may know better, may know more than they do, that they may actually know what they are doing.

[JoeyT]

79. Well, it probably would be more flame inducing

but only because your argument sucks.

And they don't even consider the possibility that those in government may know better, may know more than they do, that they may actually know what they are doing.

In a hundred words or less explain why that doesn't apply to the Bush administration.

Funny how the people that claim the far left and far right are sooooo similar always use the arguments of the far right.
Edited to add: And they're always authoritarians.

[Solomon]

26. Great post. Every time I say this I get hammered.

Nice job.

[LiberalFighter]

27. The problem too is that many only see the steps taken they want to see.

There are so many steps that have been taken because they aren't in the headlines. And there are so many steps that will be taken as a result of other steps that seem insignificant.

In some ways we are far ahead of what it was 10 years ago. And definitely, more than 20, 50 or even 100 years ago.

At the same time there have been steps taken that have resulted in serious set backs. Mostly effecting our economy. Hopefully the steps taken and to be taken will set the ship back on its course.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

28. There are people on this board....

for whom moral victories count for more than real progress. People who believe that principles must never be compromised.

These people are howling at the moon.

Democracies are built around compromises, which means that the only way to maintain your moral purity is to never be involved in the process.

[ShortnFiery]

33. Ending 2 immoral/illegal occupations? It's what's CORRECT not PURE - we're being punked.

Evil prevails when good men remain silent.-Ray Franz

[Unvanguard]

36. It may well be what is correct. That does not mean it is what is possible.

And demanding the impossible does not get you what is correct; it just gets you nothing.

[ShortnFiery]

39. Wait until it comes home? I have friends and family that have come home less than whole.

Wait until your friends and/or loved ones come home half-human and/or in a box.

THEN you will dream of the impossible. Then you will be able to RELATE. :(

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

49. You're sort of proving the point...

"Dreaming of the impossible" is not effective politics.

Get what is possible today.
Then get what is possible tomorrow.
And the day after that.
And the day after that.

An immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan is not possible and it's not going to happen. Posting frowny-faces on the subject is not going to change that.

Holding this Administration accountable for its timetable and pushing Democrats in Congress to keep moving toward disengagement works. SCREAMING EPITHETS AT THEM -- whether in person or from your keyboard -- is spectacularly ineffectual.

[ShortnFiery]

52. I don't agree. What's disgusting is inaction and passivity.

Yes, I'd much rather burn out than to fade away.

You go play it safe and do nothing. When the draft takes your loved ones to kill and die for American Empire, you're going to loathe people telling YOU to "be patient." ;)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

66. Well at least we're using a smiley face now....

Neither burning out nor fading away is a useful approach.

Change comes slowly. That's the way it's always been. In this country, it took us eleven years to get from The Declaration of Independence to the United States Constitution. And it took 78 years (and one Civil War) until we finally abolished slavery. And it took 55 years from there before women won the constitutional right to vote. On a more current note, the subject of gays in the military has been a matter of intense debate since the late 1960's.

Things always move too slowly. But if your passion causes you to reject anything other than a complete victory (and RIGHT NOW, dammit), then you've placed yourself on the political margins. To those people you would seek to protect, you've become a non-entity and all you have to offer is your rage. The world is what it is, and while we should never be content with the way things are, the task is to not allow your dissatisfaction with the world to consume you.

Under Obama we've gone from a open-ended commitment of combat troops in Iraq to a timeline for withdrawal. That's not nothing. Under Obama we've gone from no coherent approach to Afghanistan (unless "kill them all" is a coherent approach) to having a strategic plan. Now you might disagree with the strategy, but it beats the hell out of "keep shooting until we think of something better to do." We've moved from a regime that seemed to think that America had a divine right to rule the world to an Administration that works cooperatively with other nations. That's something. That's a victory.

Celebrate and move on to the next one.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

76. Who's accusing Obama of Facism?

Freepers are doing it.
Teabaggers are doing it.
Glenn Back is doing it.
And you're doing it.

I had you on ignore for about a year.

Back in the box you go....

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

93. Your post...

Which mods have seen fit to delete because it's such a blatant violation of the site's rules, accuses an Obama supporter of being a "Good German" and included a swastika-festooned graphic.

How on earth could I have made than connection?

IGNORE

[freddie mertz]

55. Since when are ending wars and defending human rights "impossible"?

I call that defeatism (at best), and complicity (at worst, and more likely).

[Unvanguard]

63. You can call it what you like.

I call it "being realistic."

Wars have been fought and human rights violated by states since they came into existence. Liberal democracy has tempered this tendency somewhat, but not eliminated it. The struggle to advance the tempering and move toward elimination continues, and is materially advanced by (among other things!) supporting the people who do less of it rather than the people who do more. Pretending that achieving the ideal is a viable option right now, and using that as an excuse to not support the lesser gains that are actually achievable, helps this struggle not in the slightest: it only serves to make it politically irrelevant.

Just because something is right does not mean that it will, or can, happen. It does not matter, in those terms, how important that right thing is. The two are entirely independent of one another.

[cornermouse]

64. Certainly its easier to either have no goals or to set the bar so low

one only needs to step over it instead of the customary jump.

[freddie mertz]

71. Have you ever participated in any real activism?

Read a history book every once in a while?

People take power into their own hands and ACT.

Rosa Parks. MLK. You know.

"Demand the impossible" (1968).

[spoony]

84. Yep, and words are being hijacked here.

Doing what's right is not unreasonable, it is not ungrateful, it is not demanding purity. And pragmatism is not a synonym for either complacency, appeasement or diminishing returns.

[yowzayowzayowza]

88. Doing what's right can be unreasonable.

The right thing to do at the inception of our experiment in self governance would have been to grant suffrage to all human beings, but alas, that would have very likely stillborn our union. "Doing what's right" is not necessarily a singular binary operation

[spoony]

89. I'm not sure they believed that would have been 'doing what's right.'

I think that's more a case of an evolving sense of social justice. In any case, I agree that sometimes doing the right thing is 'unreasonable' in that it will upset the apple cart (not in the sense that it isn't wise or proper) to some degree, but that really isn't a good enough excuse--99% of the time--to fail to do so.

[freddie mertz]

54. And others willing to oppose progress in order to defend certain politicians.nt.

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. What johnaries said...

Every time one of these pseudo-leftists calls me a "centrist" I just smile.

[fortune]

30. Thanks Mr. Lieberman n/t

[mstinamotorcity]

31. All of this division

in both parties is an old trick. Its called divide and conquer. It mainly started with the civil rights voting act.Example- The right never lets us forget that Dr. King was a republican. But they always remember to tell us that it was the more moderate left style of the party who wanted change. We as Dems do it too. By saying that the Democratic party is progressives,liberals,or any other term. All of it is to draw competition from within. To cause conflict from within. And as a people it is about time to stop labeling each other and bring the Democratic party forward as a whole. Together we stand,divided we fall.

[ShortnFiery]

41. All because our "big tent" democratic party has let in the conservative corporatists.

Our values diverge ... greatly. :nuke:

[Cowpunk]

82. Funny, I've never heard that about Dr. King

And I've listened to a lot of right wing talk. I have heard him called a communist a few times.

[mstinamotorcity]

94. Yes Dr. King was a Republican

But let's remember the state of the country at that time. The republican party had a large percentage of the black vote back then. Even though there was a Democratic party,republicans were the money making game in politics. They had control of everything except the Presidency.We are talking early sixties.The southern powers that be were angry,they did not want to give up control.They were mad at their low wage workforce leaving for the north to work better jobs for more money.One reason you have foreign automakers in southern states. They didn't want unions,or land owners.

The beautiful thing about Dr. King was, he stood up in his own party and denounced the inhumane treatment of minorities. And made a significant difference and help to steer African Americans over to the Democratic side to implement change in their party too. Because contrary to popular belief their were racist in the Democratic Party also.But can you see Micheal Steele doing something so bold and courageous without the approval of Rush Limpdick or Dick Armey? Never would happen. That is why most African Americans don't respect other African Americans in the repug party flat out.

[No Elephants]

97. Have you ever seen the right prove this claim?

FYI: Many African Americans were Republicans because of Abraham Lincoln. Many changed over during the Roosevelt Era, whether bc of the New Deal, the war, Eleanor Roosevelt's efforts, etc. Still more changed over after Truman integrated the military.

Martin Luther King, SENIOR, however, remained a Republican--until Martin Luther King, Jr. got arrested. At that time, JFK was campaigning. Someone suggested JFK call Coretta King. He did, and asked her if there was anything he could do. She gave him an answer something like, "You would know that better than I would, but, if you could do anything, I would appreciate it." (NOT her exact words.)

Martin Luther King, Sr. then called JFK. He told JFK that he had always voted Republican but, given the comfort JFK had just given his daughter in law, he was going to vote Democratic from that point on.

I don't know if Martin Luther King, Jr. ever voted Republican or not. However, are we to believe that Martin Luther King, Jr. was less grateful for JFK's call to his own wife than his Dad was?

Oh, and after the calls, Martin Luther King was soon released. Whether that was JFK or not, I don't know.

I wonder if the Repukes don't confuse Senior with Junior--and forget entirely that even Senior switched--and before the Civil Rights Act, at that. In any event, next time you get that claim, ask for proof. I'd do that everytime a Republican claimed something anyway. More often than not, I'll wager, they won't be able to produce any.

[Unvanguard]

34. Same here.

Hardcore socialist in favor of radical, systematic change to the fundamentals of our economic and political system, but we're not going to get that--indeed, we're not going to get anything--by attacking and obstructing the people who are trying to get us what improvements can be attained from the present framework of society.

We are not at a revolutionary moment; this is just ordinary democratic politics, and our aim has to be whatever will make people's lives better and afford us some measure of justice, however partial it might seem a solution to our more fundamental social inequities.

[ShortnFiery]

37. Improvement of this predatory CAPITALIST State will not benefit "the people."

IMO, we must fight the budding fascist machine with every non-violent and legal course of action.

They want us to be passive.

A PASSIVE POPULACE never made history nor changed the status quo.

You want TYRANNY and TOTALITARIAN RULE?

Then remain passive.

[yowzayowzayowza]

38. "I'm an idealist without illusions." - JFK n/t

[ShortnFiery]

40. Sounds pretty but makes absolutely NO SENSE. eom

[yowzayowzayowza]

44. For you, thatz not a surprise. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

46. Correct. I'm more this type of persona. "Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained."

[yowzayowzayowza]

48. And the quote is about the difference betwixt idealistic ventures...

that are rational versus illusory, a distinction many fail to comprehend and continually tilt at windmills as a result.

[ShortnFiery]

51. No, it's a pretty way to say it's better to "play it safe." eom

[yowzayowzayowza]

56. LOL!!! n/t

[polichick]

45. Liberal leaders wouldn't have to take so many steps backward...

...if they were bold and proud and sure about liberal values and policies - which history shows have been dead on every time.

[Blue-Jay]

47. Truth.

+1

[phleshdef]

50. I feel the same way. I'd love to see our most liberal ideas become policy.

But I'm also not so naive to think thats even remotely possible in the current political climate.

[cornermouse]

59. If you don't try with everything you've got, you'll never win the prize.

[freddie mertz]

53. Yeah, right.

"Far left" to define the goals of peace and social and economic justice unattainable.

And "liberal" enough to defend and partake in attacking liberals with a very broad brush.

Next. :puke:

[Cha]

57. Thanks John..about time

somebody mentioned this logic.

[cornermouse]

58. That's flipping the argument upside down and standing it on its head.

It sounds more surrender than anything else. And you are mistaken. They didn't fight; not even a little.

[Cleobulus]

60. There's a difference between political pragmatism and reality...

To give a now pertinent example, Obama's support of offshore oil development as a step in what he advocates as "energy independence". Frankly I supported this, as a POLITICAL move, but only if not one public dollar is used to fund it or promote it vigorously. The reason is that its just not that much oil, as we can see, the danger of blowouts is quite real, and its a waste of preciously few resources.

[BlueIdaho]

61. Everyone wants small government and lower taxes...

Until you start taking benefits away from them.

Just sayin...

[cliffordu]

62. RIght on the money. K&R.

[depakid]

67. From the looks of it this "pragmatic centricism" might well cost Democrats their majority

in the house....

As many of us warned it as early as last February and March.

[Codeine]

68. +1 and well said. nt

[Radical Activist]

70. As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be.

That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be - it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system.
- Saul Alinsky

[burning rain]

72. Odd for someone to self-identify as "far left" or "far right."

Those are derogatory terms, and at the same time there has been no fashion for the objects of those slurs appropriating them for purposes of empowerment, as with "Methodist," "Tory," "queer," etc.

One may as well say, "I'm an extremist and a fool" as describe oneself as "far left" or "far right."

[TheKentuckian]

73. Pragmatic would require one to seek workable and effective solutions

to the problems faced rather than token initiatives that are more subterfuge than answer.

Pragmatism has now been conflated with eager acceptance of unworkable, fraudulent, or counter-productive cures for dire problems simply because the problems are "addressed" and then finger pointing to duck responsibility for the lack of productive outcomes, usually at the left.

See, most of the issues of our times have a range of solutions that have a real chance of working but the "pragmatism" of the era is hellbent on avoiding any of the number of real answers and instead selects the response that most carefully preserves the status quo and profit centers for the folks that cause the meltdowns.

Pragmatic is now in current political context another word for eating shit, calling it pumpkin pie, and demanding that everyone not only call shit pumpkin pie but the very best they've ever had, and that whipped cream is for suckers.

[Cowpunk]

81. Damn straight. I'm "shrill" because I'm a pragmatist.

Three decades of Democratic "pragmatism" have moved the country far to the right and nearly destroyed it in the process. Right now conservatives have little political power, yet everywhere you look, conservative policies rule. The health care bill the Democrats passed looks like something Republicans would have proposed a decade ago.

[FrenchieCat]

87. Talk to the fucked up media about that!

I think between them and the lobbyists and many of our pols,
you are right, conservatism has been made the rule.

But I don't believe Obama is to blame......
as this as been going on long before
he ever came to Washington....and he
can only do so much in his 15 months
thus far. It ain't like the game's not rigged,
cause it is.....

[cornermouse]

90. Give it up, Frenchie.

If he can't get his act together over 15 months when the Congress had a democratic majority in both houses, he shouldn't have run for President.

[saracat]

98. It is 15 months isn't it? And we DO have a majority? One would never know.

Just what doees it take for real change to take place? And why do the GOP never counsel their base to take "baby steps" or compromise?

[TheKentuckian]

102. The game is rigged and that is why it is past time for someone to say "ENOUGH"

and stand tall to stop the cycle. To be truthful about conditions and solutions.

We can't be blamed for what situations we come into but we are accountable for how we handle them.

[Hosnon]

74. +1. nt.

[Flying Dream Blues]

78. I feel this way, too. nt

[okie]

91. What if we're not making 'baby steps'

I see the logic behind your position, but what if the idea of 'making progress' or a 'step forward' is wrong? What if the political/economic system moves in one direction and liberals are just playing the game within its rules? If this is the case, then what?

[Tailormyst]

95. So do you think that things will move left on their own people just stop complaining?

Or do you think when what you call the far left get vocal and angry it helps pull things back from going to far right?

[niceypoo]

96. The strawman

rides again

[ibegurpard]

99. Baby steps in the wrong direction

institutionalization of an industry is not reform.

[robinblue]

100. The so called health care reform is more than 2 steps backward=its

taxpayers paying into corporate coffers!! year after year!

[NJmaverick]

101. Kick for common sense!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

103. Sounds a lot like my line of thinking.

Any bit of progress is a good thing, and we should do anything to take it.

[JNelson6563]

104. Yes, one must take the long view.

As the old adage goes: The wheels of Rome move slowly.

And to any literalist who wants to take issue, yes, I know this is not Rome. But it's big, cumbersome, even a bit unwieldy, so is slow moving.

Julie