|
And I am not kidding.
Reagan succeeded in breaking up a political coalition that had dominated the country's political scene for decades, changing the trajectory of the political mood in the country, and forcing through a (watered down) agenda that corresponded to political values that had until that point been solidly in the wilderness.
And he did it, what's more, largely through compromise that had the hard-liners of his party screaming (kind of like what you see on DU about Obama).
If Obama can accomplish something similar but from the opposite end of the political spectrum, then I have no objections at all about who he has to listen to, whose example he has to follow to do so.
He should study whatever political methods were most effective, not the ones that were most palatable.
Of all the Presidents since the end of the Long Sixties era, I think there can be little doubt that Reagan had the most effective political methods, however noxious his agenda might have been.
This sort of reaction makes one understand just why leading progressive figures look on a great part of the left as the "Professional Left".
It calls to mind something that was once said by Franklin Roosevelt:
"I am not bitter, and nor am I a cynic. But I do wish that some people would show a little more maturity in their political thinking."
Or Lyndon Johnson:
"These goddamn f*cking crazies would rather see everything that they're fighting for go up in flames than compromise their ideological purity."
|