"Change" = post-partisanship = reaching across the aisle = GOOD

[Lilith Velkor]

Third Way = DLC = "triangulation" = EVIL

Have I got it straight?



Why is it that I seem to be one of a small minority who has noticed that the GOOD thing and the EVIL thing are the SAME BLOODY THING? :banghead:

[FrenchieCat]

1. Because most people would prefer not to deal in bumper sticker talk....

which is all that you have just done.

Liberals should really attempt to have more informed conversation than this.

Good vs. evil? Oye! :eyes:

[Lilith Velkor]

2. That ship has sailed.

As you would know if you've read this forum in the past year.

[FrenchieCat]

3. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

[Lilith Velkor]

5. Fair enough.

[wyldwolf]

4. you're not the only one that has noticed that

Some are just in denial.

As a fan of the Third Way, I recognized immediately when Obama dressed the philosophy in flowery clothes and sold it as something new.

[Lilith Velkor]

8. So did I

except that I'm definitely not a fan.

I'm just bewildered by the continual denial from so many of my fellow non-fans. I wonder whether they didn't bother to actually read anything he said, or if they just turned off their previously well-functioning bullshit meters.

I'll probably never know. :(

[Runcible Spoon]

6. they both suck. Post-partisan equals one party.

:puke:

[Lilith Velkor]

10. There should really be four or five, IMO.

[Generator]

51. Exactly

Obama is half Republican. Which is FINE with most that are (oh ironical term coming) left on this site. It's called nana nana I don't want to hear it, it's all whining.

WHY CAN'T it forever be November 4th at 11PM PST? Everything after is not important. Obama won. Who cares what he does with it? As long as that Bush guy is gone-who cares if the war is still here in four years and the Democratic party is pushed further and further to the right by Mr. Unity?

[wyldwolf]

7. you're post is moot anyway. I was just told there are no official DLC members in Congress

It's all imaginary.

[Lilith Velkor]

11. Well, that's a relief.

Unless - OH NOES! They're all hiding in the cabinet! OMG! :freak:

[Thrill]

9. I like Obama's approach. But seeing how the RNC reacted to the Blago thing. I say Fuck Them

.

[Lilith Velkor]

13. What did those idiots say?

[iamthebandfanman]

12. bi-partisonship and co-operation works on many levels

if the party and our elected leaders only reach out to convervatives and shut out the left, then they arent being very co-operative now are they.

[Lilith Velkor]

14. On Election night, Barack invited those who disagree with him to speak up

I didn't hear him say, "Except for you leftists."

If we are to believe Steve Hildebrand speaks for him, perhaps he really meant just that. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and take him at his word. And if the Administration doesn't like it, well, tough shit. He wasn't elected to be President of everyone but the left, either.

[TankLV]

18. Definition: You Democrats comply with REPUKE demands...

repukes don't have to make ANY concessions - that's their definition of "bipartisanship"...

[xchrom]

15. obama is center right -- people are going to have to get used to that. nt

[Lilith Velkor]

17. I've been used to it for a year now.

Others seem to have just noticed. :wtf:

[Two Americas]

33. "is?"

I don't understand these debates about what a politician "is" as though they were a product we were buying - that has a "no return" policy attached to it and no customer service department. "You bought it, you are stuck with it, so shut up."

It is what a politician does that matters, not what they "are."

When you say he "is" something or other, and that we "are going to have to get used to that" you are asking people to accept what he does from here on out, and to not criticize what he does. That completely sabotages representative democracy and is a veiled call for suppression of dissent.

[Lilith Velkor]

38. What "is" is

is an expectation of what he will do.

Or not do, if we criticize loudly and vigorously enough.

[Two Americas]

40. yes

It is a dynamic process, a give and take. The corporate representatives are not sitting back saying "well, we elected our guy, so let's just trust him and leave him alone. I am sure he will do the right thing."

[political_Dem]

16. The Republicans are already acting up because of the birth certificate and the Blagojecvich mess.

That's why bi-partisanism (and post-partisanship, respectively) is rather hypocritical. Does anyone honestly think that the Republicans will truly play fair? They've haven't been fair the last eight years. They showed their behind after the election in a variety of matters concerning President-Elect Obama. And, letting them into the fold only gives them more opportunity to take over the entire situation.

There is nothing brilliant about working with conservatives when they only think of themselves and their party first while America runs a very definite last in what matters to them the most.

[Lilith Velkor]

21. "You knew I was a snake when you picked me up."

[Raineyb]

22. Which is why Post-Partisanship is a load of crap

Republicans got into office and rammed every rotten supply-side, deregulatory, anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-civil rights legislation they were able to get through. Now that it's all going to shit the Democrats are supposed to work with these same Republicans and pretend that what they believe is right for the country has any merit? I don't think so. Post-partisanship is a scam. There's no such thing. Republicans idea of post-partisanship is for Democrats to do what they want without them giving up a damn thing. I damn sure didn't vote to see more of that and I don't see a damn thing brilliant about it either.

Regards

[Kitty Herder]

19. I daresay most people knew they were the same thing all along.

Whether they saw the talk about "reaching across the aisle" as a good thing or not depended on their point of view.

I, for one, was always irked by that little talking point, but I accept that Obama is the closest thing to progressive we're gonna get and it's our job to push him farther to the left, making it clear to him that the right-wing, reactionary politics of the DLC and the Republicans are not acceptable to the general public. (The public is far to the left of our center-right political leaders on the issues, if you believe the polls.)

[Lilith Velkor]

23. Your characterization of the DLC makes it difficult to take you seriously.

If their politics are "right-wing, reactionary" then that means Obama's politics are, as well.

Can we please cut the bullshit here? Their politics (both Obama and the DLC) are CENTRIST. We can push them leftward more effectively by not being idiots about it.

[Two Americas]

26. corporatist

The agenda is corporatist, which means in alignment with the whims and desires of the wealthy and powerful few.

The upper class supports the liberal positions on social issues, and the conservative positions on economics. The rich people have their organic, have gone green, favor gun control, have access to abortion, don't go to church, enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights, ride bikes, recycle, are health conscious, save energy, tolerate GLBT people in their circles, have complete sexual freedom, and on and on. They are not opposed to any of those things, they are merely opposed to any of us peons having any of those, or having anything else as far as that goes.

Those liberal social issues are held out to us, the donkeys, as carrots. In exchange for that, we support what is really important to them (they can buy a liberal lifestyle for themselves and don't need out permission) the conservative economic agenda, and we act as palace guard to protect power - "don't get too radical, these things take time, don't go too far, work within the system, take baby steps, be practical." We also do the all important job of bashing the political Left for them and policing ourselves for their benefit.

With the political debate framed the way it is, they get it all and we get nothing.

This is not the "center" of anything - it is everything for them and nothing for us. As intellectuals and educated people, we don't even get to keep our integrity, and instead spend our entire lives applying our verbal and critical thinking skills to the cause of protecting, defending and promoting the interests of the wealthy and powerful few, and betraying our working class brothers and sisters in exchange for status, security and a few more trinkets.

[Kitty Herder]

27. Well said.

Thanks.

[Lilith Velkor]

28. Do you think demonizing the DLC has anything to do with economic policies?

I would be perfectly alright with that if it were, of course.

However, this past year's experience has taught me that a disturbingly large number of those who demonize the DLC have no problem whatsoever with corporatism, as long as it's not associated with a Clinton.

I hope they got some nice trinkets or something.

[wyldwolf]

30. Lilith Velkor - you are living proof...

Someone can be anti-DLC without being bat-shit crazy.

[Two Americas]

34. heh

And me! How about me?

Hey wyldwolf - if you would...

What does third way mean to you? Or would you say "centrist" or "moderate?" We are always arguing, but I don't really know your views.

[wyldwolf]

35. ok, you, too!

My take:

After the Democratic party suffered humiliating defeats in '72, '80, '84, and '88, the DLC acted as a dam of sorts, holding back even more of the Republican dominance that was sweeping the county (it was actually an anti-incumbent wave). it doesn't hurt that I agree, for the most part, with the core DLC policy positions.

As for corporations - they became a part of the Democratic party almost a decade before the DLC existed (see The Democratic Business Council)

The Third Way, to me, means exactly what Obama said in my sig line:

""It was Bill Clinton's singular contribution that he recognized that the categories of conservative and liberal played to Republican advantage and were inadequate to address our problems.

He understood the falseness of the choices being presented to Americans. He saw that government spending and regulation could serve as vital ingredients and not inhibitors to growth, and how markets and fiscal responsibility could help promote social justice. He recognized that societal and personal responsibility were needed to combat poverty. Clinton's third way went beyond splitting the difference. It tapped into the pragmatic, nonideological attitude of Americans."

[Two Americas]

39. thanks

Appreciate that.

"The categories of conservative and liberal played to Republican advantage and were inadequate to address our problems." - I certainly agree with that in regards to the right wing's "cultural war" issues. I don't agree with that on economic issues, though. Do you separate the two areas out?

[wyldwolf]

45. Yes, I do separate them

One can't be a Dem without being an economic populist to a degree.

[Two Americas]

46. agreed

That is how I see it, as well.

[Lilith Velkor]

36. Why, thank you.

I must say, not being perceived as bat-shit crazy is a new thing for me.

[Two Americas]

31. DLC

I am not sure what the DLC is exactly, or what it means to people, so I don't know if I am "for" or "against" it.

You say "a disturbingly large number of those who demonize the DLC have no problem whatsoever with corporatism, as long as it's not associated with a Clinton."

I agree. That is the problem.

In general, the Democratic party is bought and paid for by corporate interests and works for them and not for the people; "DLC," "Clinton," whatever.

[avaistheone1]

48. Anyone who has studied the DLC knows this is the truth.

[Beacool]

43. Yep, there is only a wafer thin difference between Hillary's voting record and Obama's.

Funny how many progressives rail against her and how so few realize the irony.

:eyes:

[mmonk]

20. I feel in the minority at times as well.

I was happy over the election but the players remain which makes me healthfully distrustful.

[Lilith Velkor]

24. Yup.

Distrust is very healthful when it comes to politicians. :thumbsup:

[Two Americas]

25. it is not easy

No one said that it was going to be easy to be a modern liberal. May try, but few succeed.

One must learn to hold two completely contradictory thoughts in mind at the same time. This requires incredible verbal skills to explain your positions to other people - 90% of the people in the general public roll their eyes, tune you out, and run as fast as they can on the other direction - as well as an enormous capacity for enduring mental stress. That is why people flip out and start insulting others if they are questioned too closely.

The job is to promote the interests of the upper class, while making it sound as though you are doing the opposite. It is hard work, I tell you.

[Lilith Velkor]

29. OT: It's good to see you again, TA.

:toast:

[Two Americas]

32. likewise

Hope all is well with you. Good to see you.

:toast:

[derby378]

37. Bipartisanship with neo-con Repukes is a very evil thing, indeed

I say we freeze them out of the decision process until they're replaced in the next round of elections. :bounce:

[Two Americas]

41. has been going on forever

"Transcending partisanship" and "healing the wounds" and "moving the country forward" and "putting an end top slavery agitation" or "people are tired of Labor unrest" - it has come in many guises over the years.

In the 1850's this was a common theme - "people are tired of the bitter arguments about slavery. Both sides are extreme fringe positions. One side is as bad as the other. We need to be pragmatic, to take a centrist position, and move forward. This slavery argument is a big distraction from the problems facing the country. Those Abolitionists are a bunch of perfectionists and will never be happy with anything."

Disappearing partisanship always has and always will mean disappearing the political Left. The wealthy and powerful few and their agents are not going anywhere or giving up anything.

[derby378]

42. Well, the Abolitionists won...

...so there's still hope that we can push the neo-cons out. They haven't been in Washington all that long.

[Two Americas]

47. we'll win

No doubt about that. How many will have to suffer for how long before we do - that is what we don't know yet.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

44. Depends on why you are reaching across the aisle

When you're doing it to join the Republicans in warmongering and fucked up trade deals ala the DLC, then it's bad. If you're doing it to get some in the GOP to support progressive goals, then it's good.

[Two Americas]

49. twist arms

Twist arms, threaten, wrestle to the ground, pummel beyond recognition. Moderate rhetoric and enticements can be part of that effort.

Congressional Democrats do the opposite - talk tough, and then cave in.

Republicans talk in soothing tones, pose as oh so reasonable, and then cut your nuts off. (channeling LBJ here)

[mrreowwr_kittty]

52. Exactly.

Why can't progressive programs be called things like "Energize American Competitiveness" or "National Strength Through Progress"?

[sohndrsmith]

50. well said... n/t