About the dual nature of our political system and its dangers.

[Bonobo]

I honestly feel that my politics have not changed significantly in the past 30 years but that the political climate of the US has shifted so far to the right that I am no longer even on the radar anymore.

What Obama, Clinton and many here do not seem to fully appreciate is that, since our political system is a 2-party system, we invariably create a "either/or" in the people's mind.

No matter how far to the center a Democrat moves, he/she will always be labeled by the other side as being an 'far left extremist' because it is in their political best interest to do so.

One of the most important things a Democratic president can do is to be an advocate for the political philosophy of their party. It is not all about 'practicalities'. The reason it is so important to stand up for the core ideals of our party is that, by not doing so, we face the very real danger of having the goalposts of the entire country's political vision shifted in accordance with the mislabeling done by the other side.

To put it a different way, if we run to the center and they call it the far left, the goalposts are re-adjusted and that becomes the new normal. This is what has happened steadily since Clinton became president and the other side labeled Hillary as a hippie.

The new normal:

1. A decade of war is entirely defensible if you can claim it is to protect our safety.
2. Corporate tax cuts create jobs
3. Social Security is a form of welfare/entitlement
4. Attempts to correct some of the economic inequality is a socialist 'wealth redistribution'
5. Torture and extra-legal renditions are defensible in service of national security.
6. Unconstitutional searches, pat-downs and even assassination of US citizens is defensible in service of national security
7. Corporations, if big enough, are too big to be allowed to fail and shall be bailed out -even as the idea of make-work jobs to stave off poverty is rejected

Etc. etc. -I am sure you could name dozens of new things or reject my examples, but my point is the same and it is this:

In a dualistic system where only 2 main political groups exist, the one that gives up on its core ideas and fails to asset their import, is the loser. The other side gets to re-define you and a new normal is created.

I think this is what has happened in spades -and as time passes, memory fades and those who do not remember the way things once were, fall victim to this new normal even more so than the rest of us.

[bobbolink]

1. Everything you say is correct (of course, you leave out poverty, but that is to be expected)

But none of it is going ot happen.

That should be clear by now.

Here's the one incorrect.. this is NOT a "two-party" system.... this is a one-party system.. the corporatist party, with two branches.

[RKP5637]

3. Excellent Point!!! A "one-party system.. the corporatist party, with two branches."

Excellent!!!

[RKP5637]

2. The Dems also need to get better messaging and kick this back in their faces! n/t

[RandomThoughts]

4. The memory and slow cultural rot is a good point.

If you look at the range of topics discussed in songs and stories just 30 years ago, and compare that to corporate rock of today, you can see a significant difference.

Go back another 30 years and there were shows with complex moral tales like the twilight zone.

Today's TV, and most of the music is either managed to create the same 'controlled' narratives, or is bland.



As far as redefining that is a really long topic.

But here is a story of how redefining works, and how such a thing can have an effect.

O face.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncpdcFOMJhA

Find an avid conservative. Ask them if they noticed how O is a magazine for Oprah, and President Obama used the O in his campaign.

Then ask them who their wife is moaning to in those private times. Not true of coarse, but it could have some funny results, although not a nice thing to do.

[Bonobo]

6. Hell, we used to be able to discuss socialism and communism as an idea.

We had an organized and strong communist party until so much dirt was thrown at it, but at its core was the philosophical discussion of whether or not resources should be distributed fairly in order to create an egalitarian society, That is now permanently off the table even as a notion to be discussed and it has been replaced by a mindless worship of the God of the "Free Market". That is the only principle that the US really stands behind securely now and damn the idea of fairness and sharing and egalitarianism.

[rgbecker]

8. Now the republicans are telling us that socialism isn't constitutional.

Forget that they can't show you where in the constitution is says that.

[Exultant Democracy]

5. No one read this it makes too much sense! Don't let Bonobo infect you with his fact based analysis

It seems pretty clear that the 2008 election was a sign that the left is ready for progress, too bad.

[Bonobo]

13. Thanks. nt

[patrice]

7. I agree with and share your perception of what has happened. I would like to add:

"... since our political system is a 2-party system, we invariably create a "either/or" in the people's mind" we should not fall into either/or thinking ourselves. We should free ourselves from that kind of thinking because it prevents us from discovering effective tools that are, at minimum, latent in our situation.

There are ways and then there are ways to "advocate for a political philosophy" and to stay committed to those values in ALL of your actions with others, no matter what, by means of honesty, courage, and awareness.

Ask any woman, there are more than two ways to get things done. Power belongs to those who can create and use those tools.

[patrice]

9. How is the change supposed to happen? If we were to suddenly start to get it right, which we

are to assume is some way different from the course that President Obama is on, what would that course look like?

HOW would the right change happen? What events would transpire that would lead to something closer to the right thing for America?

[Bonobo]

10. A conversation about what we think we deserve as citizens would be a good start.

For example, before legislators start proposing legislation, I think the core issues underlying the need for legislation is needed.

Here is one example:

Before congress-critters start writing legislation about health care, shouldn't there be a discussion about what our core beliefs, as a nation, are about a person's right to health care?

After these things are discussed and agreed upon, if such a thing could be done, then ideas about HOW to achieve it should come out.

I suspect that if the conversation could be properly moderated devoid of political ties, we would be surprised at how much people agree with each other.

The problems occur when one political party stakes out a position and uses rhetoric and exaggerations to muddy the other side.

[patrice]

12. Agreed. One essential trait of real change would be our own powerful participation

in writing legislation. What has to happen to get that? If what has to happen isn't political, because the system to too corrupt to support it in anyway by participating effectively enough to be taken seriously, what other means is there? Complete disruption of some sort? How much disruption? How often? What about those whose very lives depend upon basic order?

I hear all of the complaints about how things are with the President. I understand and agree to some extent, but I don't like complaining for its own sake. I need an objective. If we want change and we aren't getting it, what SHOULD happen? The ends do not justify the means, so I just want some idea of HOW people envision the right changes occurring.

[AndyTiedye]

11. The Pendulum Only Moves in One Direction

all the Democrats can do is slow it down a bit.