If you don’t understand why we need an idea like Liberal Democrats…
Published by punkass marc November 8th, 2006 in Liberal Democrats…maybe now you do. [This is Liberal Democrats]
Looks like Emmanuel is pushing for some of the issues I mentioned earlier this morning, but for some reason he sees them as mutually exclusive from “liberals.” That’s ridiculous.
he’s a pragmatic partisan. i’d assume he doesn’t feel like fighting the stigma of the label, but knows what people want. similar to how i often don’t call myself a liberal, because how is it left of center when you want what most Americans want? it’s a false terminology forced on us by people like Newt Gingrich, and I hope he chokes on it, but i think it’s important to note that the things we fight for are middle-of-the-road things that ‘normal’ people want - health care, economic protections, privacy in our personal lives. in many ways, we’re only ‘liberal’ because someone decided to call neocon nutjobbery centrist.
anyway, regardless of what he calls it, if our issues are backed by Rahm, they’ll happen. because everybody knows that if you don’t do what he wants, he’ll come to your house and kick you in the nuts. even if you don’t have them.
(my partner works for the party, and Rahm’s our Chuck Norris.)
Pragmatic partisan? Try self-aggrandizing, power-hungry jackass. Fuck him.
Philosopher, it’s you who seem to have bought into the conservative reframing of where exactly the “center” is. I challenge you to show me any definition of the word “Liberalism” from any reputable reference source which associates it with any political direction, left, right or center.
The very things you mention as what “normal people want”, but yet you don’t seem to consider liberal, are in fact all classic examples of liberalism. So you support health care, economic protections, privacy in our personal lives. Great! Welcome to the club, you’re already a liberal!
Call yourself a “centrist” til the cows come home, I don’t mind. As long as you recognize that you’re a LIBERAL centrist. Philosopher, you need to stand up straight and own who you are. Have the strength to call a spade a spade, and to call yourself Liberal and Proud! If good-hearted but misled folks like you continue to deny that you are Liberal so as to avoid making any waves, you’re letting Newtie reframe your identity for you, after all.
Philosopher sez:
he’s a pragmatic partisan. i’d assume he doesn’t feel like fighting the stigma of the label, but knows what people want.
What WaPo reported:
In private talks before the election, Emanuel and other top Democrats told their members they cannot allow the party’s liberal wing to dominate the agenda next year.
*sigh*
Philosopher, what exactly do you think Emanuel means by “liberal wing”? He means what he says. Emanuel and others like him are in favor of holding us back from the fruits of Liberalism, all in a mistaken* belief that it will gain Democrats more power. But there’s no use in giving the Democrats power if they don’t do anything good with it.
*as proven by the wins of all of the Liberal netroots candidates who Rahm’s Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee wouldn’t fund until it was clear how well they polled compared to Rahm’s chosen “centrist” preferences. And even then sometimes didn’t.
Hm. Seem to be screwing up with my hypertexting. Well, here’s what I meant to link:
http://www.digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116303281869942211
It’s a Digby article named “Mainstream Progressives”. Man, I love me some Digby, but I wish he would own the word “Liberal”, too.
I challenge you to show me any definition of the word “Liberalism” from any reputable reference source which associates it with any political direction, left, right or center.
Actually you could make an inference from how the self identifying “raarr, we eat babies, vote for us” rightwing has been fiercely and vocally anti-liberal since at least the 19th century when liberalism was mainly an anti-slavery movement.
It’s not so much that liberals are left wing or centrists, but that the rightwingers aren’t liberals, and as rightwingers control what is defined as right and left, liberals end up on the left by default.
Though strictly speaking the current standards for the left and right political spectrums would mean that mussolini is a hardcore communist, and by that standard emmanuel is a gestalt entity made up of all the bolshevik revolutionaries that participated during the october revolution, and should therefore be arrested on charges of cruelty to the upperclasses for his viciously calculated shooting of the entire romanov family.
Can someone comment on the contrast between Howard Dean and Rahm Emmanuel as far as political strategy is concerned?
My impression (formed from the same shallow stuff we all have to work with) is that Dean genuinely believes in the Democrats and is a solid worker who is more interested in change than flash.
Rahm comes off (to me) as an exploiter and manipulator who is looking for the glory…
Fair or unfair?
I think Dean is also misguided. He concentrates on national security and trying to talk tough (like when he got super mad at Iraqi PM Maliki for chastising Israel during the Hamas fighting). Dean doesn’t work to promote anything resembling Liberalism. Instead, like kos, he focuses on owning “the middle” (read: no backbone). I don’t disagree with everything he says/does, but I think he is more about focus-grouping than real change.
Marc, who would you see as the ideal leader for Liberal Democrats?…
Al Gore.
Al freaking Gore, baby.
There’s so much negativity in the hearts of Dems over what happened in 2000 that I am constantly rebuffed in person whenever I raise this idea to most people, but I swear on the Holy Bible of Winning in 2008 that he is the party’s only hope as a leader.
He’s an insider who now has the perspective of an outsider. He knows how to handle the political machine but also has a newfound perspective on speaking his mind and acting on what matters. Sincerity and passion are dripping off the man these days.
He has a boatload of great new ideas (carbon tax, etc.) and the skills to make at least some of them a reality. And he’s seen as a “rock star” after his film (Entertainment Weekly proclaimed him as such without a hint of irony).
For the first time in a long time, the country is hungry for intelligence in the White House. But even discarding electability, the man has the only long-term agenda for meaningful change I’ve heard.
I hadn’t wanted to bring it up before bacause I’m sort of afraid for my job (and being “outed”), but…
My wife and I saw Al Gore give a lecture earlier this week. I hadn’t seen An Inconvienient Truth before, so it was interesting to get a lecture from Al Gore in-person…
I have become so cynical about politics and politicians that it’s hard for me to become a “camp follower” overnight. That said, there’s no question that the points he’s talks about in the lecture are just good (scientifically-based) common sense…
When you get into the political aspect it’s not so clear. I want to believe in somebody’s pure, clean vision - using politics as a tool to do great things instead of an evil method of keeping the poor, poor, and the rich, rich, etc. The lecture made a big impression on me, but I’m still trying to decide what the political takeaway is…
He was asked about running and of course denied it, seems proud of his support of NAFTA, etc. Just not clear on how I should react…
He’s not perfect (see: NAFTA), but he’s a guy who can live with or without politics these days, and that’s exactly why he’s got the best chance of rattling the cage in ‘08.
“For the first time in a long time, the country is hungry for intelligence in the White House. But even discarding electability, the man has the only long-term agenda for meaningful change I’ve heard.”
A-fucking-men. But I’m afraid he’ll absolutely refuse to run. Where does that leave us? Russ Feingold?
In my completely gut-based truthiness-informed opinion, Gore stills feels burned by how he got treated by mainstream media in 2000, constantly illing on him for being smart and so delighted to watch him fall. I suspect Gore is still tempted by running, but he thinks that the instant he started to voice the notion himself, his current rockstar status would instantly crumble into the old “we hate smartypants” reflexes of old, and he has no interest in going through that again.
Even if that weren’t true, if the “Draft Gore” meme ever started getting any real play in the mainstream media, especially among the pundit class, that would get him thinking about it more seriously.
Of course, if Britney asks him to run, all our problems are solved. Somebody show her “An Inconvenient Truth”, quick!
BTW, it was incredibly refreshing to see a man give a lecture, without notes, correctly pronouncing words and generally behaving like a mature adult for more than 15 minutes. Just in that respect alone, Gore and C-Plus Augustus reside in different universes, let alone all the rest of it…
The other really surprising and refreshing thing was the sight of a whole lot of shiny young Americans respectfully watching a lecture by left-wing politician, instead of talking about IPO’s, stock buying strategies, and what they were going to do with their first million…
It gave me hope that we might be able to turn this country around. Added to the result of the election on Tuesday, it’s been a fairly decent week for hope…
Actually you could make an inference from how the self identifying “raarr, we eat babies, vote for us” rightwing has been fiercely and vocally anti-liberal since at least the 19th century when liberalism was mainly an anti-slavery movement.
A good way of putting it. The problem is that most people (right-winger or left-winger) have an aversion to being considered on the “fringe” of anything, and are quick to position themselves near the “center”– that sounds so much more safe, doesn’t it?– whether or not the center represents the values they think they believe in.
Groups like the still-hypothetical Liberal Democrats would be great, because they’re about getting everyone (especially the people in power) to accept that Liberalism is where the “center” is. That Liberalism equals more support, more votes.
I thought I might come back to a dead comment stream and play.
I apologise for the misunderstanding, those who think I don’t want to identify as liberal - I use centrist with an explanation, as I want to do what the neocons have done with the center, only in reverse - drag it back where it belongs by pointing out that there’s nothing radical about wanting health care reform, equal rights, the government staying the hell out of our bedrooms and uteri, etc. These are things that most people want, but neocons have been dragging the ‘center’ to the right by dominating the discourse.
Of course, I read my original post, and the reactions here, to my more politically-aware friends, and they informed me that of course people took offense - I didn’t realise that centrist means something very different to most people. Bad copy editor, no cookie - redefining words without, y’know, giving people the definition you’re using leads to confusion. So I need to make up a word for it so I don’t do this again, eh?
And I don’t remember if I actually posted my excitement with Marc’s plan originally, so I can’t prove it, but damn am I all over Liberal Democrats.
As for Rahm Emmanuel, my partner knows him, and I was just going on what he’d told me about him (aside from the fact that he only has two speeds, Walk and Kill Republicans). Supposedly he’s bought into the terminology problem, thinking that there’s actually a large contingent of radicals that want, I don’t know, crazy stuff (you know, the ones that don’t exist?) but wants the same things we do. being that they pay the man to keep people in line, not to philosophize, I don’t care too much either way.