The difference between the principled Left and the Obama Left. What do you think?
Recent Comments
conner43 on Paid. Leave. conner43 on Paid. Leave. gxm17 on Yea…This Is Not Going… gxm17 on Today’s Poll -Who Is The… Anonymous on Call Em Like I See Em Thank You!
Buy This Movie!
On the radio!
even Gallup has a problem with the numbers…
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-07/gallup-goes-town-bls-massagery
Clearly the difference is “principled”. Obama ain’t.
Principled Left ? Are they making a comeback ? The msm has so discredited Liberalism, it may never recover..At least the Green and Libertarian parties may get more members, if only by default.
What has been an eye opener to me (a former lefty) is that the past 4 years has shown me that authoritarianism runs deep in the left. Even in the “principled” left.
Brian nails it!
The “freakout” of the obama left Brian mentions has extended to obots spamming even my obscure blog. I decided to respond to one, to highlight just how desperate and delusional they are:
http://trueliberalnexus.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/elizabeth-warrens-lies-catching-up-with-her/#comments
The Obot was well-answered, Tamer.
This is what Obama worship has done to what should be the smartest of our young people. I weep for my alma mater: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/05/UW-Madison-Students-Left-Uninspired-Say-Unfair-President-Couldn-t-Use-Teleprompter-in-Debate And, LaFollette is likely roling over in his grave.
If anyone’s interested, Romney foreign policy speech from about 5 minutes ago:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/RomneyFo
The Obama Left at its finest:
This is a bit off.
Brian begins by saying traditional liberalism was about “economic justice, economic fairness … the increased wealth of society would be beneficial to everybody in society, not just the top one percent …” then goes on to say, “beginning in the ’70s that all went away, where economic justice no longer became the basis of the left thought, and economic justice was replaced with ideology, ideology dealing with such things as sexual proclivities one way or another, religious proclivities one way or another, immigration proclivities one way or another … .” Brian seems to be saying that after LBJ liberals abandoned efforts at economic parity but that isn’t true. There was continued effort by both Presidents Carter and Clinton pushing for economic justice; there are lots of examples, notably Clinton’s efforts to make home ownership much easier for lower income Americans to achieve. No doubt there was liberal disillusionment and a shifting of priorities in the ’70s onward but Obama was the primary game change, not the 1970s, in liberal abandonment of principles. And that’s an important thing to explore because the abandonment of principles by liberals didn’t end there, with Obama. Another split has occurred since 2008. There are people who didn’t vote for Obama, call themselves liberals, who supported Bill and Hillary Clinton, who now are supporting Mitt Romney. This is part of the same dynamic that can be found in the Obama shift. It is impossible to be a principled liberal and support Mitt Romney. It’s oxymoronic. Nobody who’s informed and honest with an iota of sense believes Mitt Romney has any intention of pushing for “economic justice, economic fairness.”
It’s important to distinguish between “Democrats” among the voting populace, and “Democrats” the party hacks & bigwigs. The shift of the Party’s focus from populist ideals to Identity Politics took place over the course of the past two decades.
The transformation of the Left into a fascist mob was achieved by obama 2008, but the seeds of radical thuggery were embedded in the Left before that.
I’m not sure the distinction is all that great, Tam. I think the line has blurred and unless blog posts and comments are made primarily by party hacks and bigwigs, judging by what I’ve read the past several years I’d say the problem has been in the voting populace as well.
This is sort of related: something weird happened right here on this liberal blog recently. I just spent some time going through my comments from one year ago to respond to a challenge from run-dmc, and I found Mouse and her posse accusing me of being a Republican troll. Most of them ended up Obama supporters and left here. They were replaced by Mitt Romney supporters Lola and her posse, who’ve been accusing me of being an Obama troll. My comments a year ago are eerily consistent with those I write currently, and in the same place one group of self-identified liberals viewed me as a Republican ratfucker while the other views me as an Obamabot. That seems revealing.
Anyway, back to what Brian said. I agree change has been taking place over the past two or three decades. But rather than populist ideals giving way to identity politics in the 1970s, I think they began to be addressed in tandem. Actually even before the 70s, like with LBJ’s (or was it JFK’s?) affirmative action – the point of which was financial opportunity (“economic justice” to use Brian’s term) through education and job access. I think identity politics came out of the civil rights movements but all the way through Clinton’s era identity politics remained married to populist ideals.
The voting public’s complicity in the matter is in accepting the false dichotomy of Dem or Gop, and putting up with execrable candidates just because they’re the ‘lesser of two evils.’
Many don’t just accept it, they actively advance it.
The characterization of the voting public as innocent victim has long since been disproved by the complaints that show they know something’s wrong and what it is but insisting on assigning blame to Them A, whether it’s Bush or Clinton or Obama or another boogeyman that strikes their fancy, while defending Them B, like Obama or Romney. That was my point in bringing up Mouse and her posse, who’d attacked Obama for three years and then defended him, and Lola and her posse who supposedly supported the Clintons and now support Romney, which makes as much sense as a vegan supporting Hormel. There’s plenty of understanding that bigwig politicians and bankers and CEOs are the problem but still these members of the voting public defend them and vote for them, and try to persuade other voters to do the same. That’s complicit way beyond your characterization. I’m not saying every voter is like that, not by a long shot, but a lot are. Way too many are. OWS were/are – they saw the problem and protested against it but by their actions/non-actions showed what they really wanted was for someone to pay their debts and let them into the club they were protesting.
“Many don’t just accept it, they actively advance it.”
Tru dat. Read the obot’s comment on my blog.
I thought I was a Lib for many years, it dawned on me a while ago, I was mainly anti war, my cool factor was a mirage of my own creation. Alas, still the same ol’ dork I always was, just with cuter shoes.
Zal says – It is impossible to be a principled liberal and support Mitt Romney. It’s oxymoronic. Nobody who’s informed and honest with an iota of sense believes Mitt Romney has any intention of pushing for “economic justice, economic fairness.”
This thinking is not oxymoronic, but it is moronic. I don’t know what he thinks a “principled liberal” is, but I’m a principled pragmatist and I’m willing to countenance that ideas and even ideology I might not necessarily have always agreed with just might work. And, I’m willing to give someone who has pragmatic ideas, is a proven leader and has a realistic chance of winning an election a chance to lead over a budding fascist incompetent. To wish on ponies and candy and flying unicorns may be fun and make one feel you’re the only “courageous” person in the room, but doesn’t make it any more useful to a pragmatic person like myself.
Finally, to think as Zal does that anyone who doesn’t completely agree with his narrow worldview is moronic, uninformed and/or senseless is the epitome of the authoritarianism (if only everyone just did what I told them was right, everything would be fine) that rules the current left – most of whom probably believe they actually are “principled liberals” and who certainly think they are all smarter, wiser and more courageous than the rest of us.
Voting for MR in a swing state, just to defeat the greater threat of obama, could be described as pragmatic. Supporting MR’s policies is not pragmatic, as MR’s policies are proven failures.
I’d like to hear a definition of “liberalism” that includes the GOP platform.
Run, One of my kids went to U. W. too. She loved it there, as a dyed in the wool NY’er, we had doubts that she would be happy there. we were wrong, thankfully.
I enjoy your comments, they bring to mind an old fashioned word, ‘staunch’, a perfectly good word, we should use it more.
Pragmatism is a quality of leadership and success. Idealism is important too, but it is not a policy, nor a plan, it is the emotion and desire of man reaching for his better angels.Thank God for idealism, it has brought us art, pleasure and wisdom, but at the end of the day, we still have to put food on the table. If we can do that in a thoughtful and thankful way, we are then both pragmatic and idealistic.
Jobs and a safer country are not too much to ask of our leaders, in fact, we should have to ‘ask’ or demand them, they should be the main business of governing.
Conner – thanks for your comment. And, I hope your daughter is doing wonderfully well as a fellow badger! And, just to be clear, I don’t despair of idealism. Like you, I believe it has an absolute place in ensuring human progress, but it has to be tempered by the fact that people need to also just get by with basic needs at the end of the day (which is your point too). Unfortunately, it takes people who aren’t necessarily all that glamorous or aren’t on the fringe and maybe just know about numbers and sense to take care of that business. (People corny and down home like Romney). I’m happy to vote for the nerd with the pragmatic sense to get stuff done. And, if he doesn’t work out – although I actually think he will – then he too gets the boot
Oh darn, I need an editor..one’ there’ would have sufficed in the first sentence, in the last I meant to say we should Not have to ask our leaders to do their damn jobs
Hi Run, U.W. kid did fine. Became a school psychologist in Minn. and has 3 little ones of her own. We were not surprised at her career path, she was always the most in-demand babysitter in the neighborhood, so her career path is sort of a natural progression of that.
She married a Badger too, a financial type..
John frequently uses the phrase Whole Food Liberals.
This kind of supports his snark. Basically, everything they believe in is bullshit:
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=A6D9F56EC3D67EB38801CCAACE10D645
Most people’s trip to Whole Foods is on the same intellectual level as a 3-year old’s watching of Teletubbies.
Well, three year olds piss me off too. They get away with EVERYTHING.
Okay, now I’m pissed, first, I learn that ‘posses” have formed around here, and nobody asked me to be in their club.. I Still can’t sit with the Cool Kids. Secondly, I have never been to Whole Foods in my life, since to me, all foods are ‘whole’, I mean who buys half an egg or just the stems from a bunch of spinach ? Maybe a clever promoter could open a Half Foods store and sell all those lunches the kids are throwing away on one side, and have a T Shirt emporium in the other half of the building. Sounds llike a winner to me….
Ok – that’s funny. And, conner – you may be like me. I don’t think I’d want to be part of a posse who would want me.
Oh yeah, there are posses….. Same as “vast right/left wing conspiracies”. When someone is losing their footing, the first thing they do is say “There is a concerted effort among (fill in the blank) that’s trying to discredit me!” instead of actually facing their own deficiencies and ineptitude to make their point convincingly. I think its more than a little entertaining.
There was a right wing conspiracy against Bill Clinton; Hillary was right.
And there was a conspiracy to support Obama and squash Hillary’s candidacy.
And there are posses, or cliques, on many of these blogs and they pile on those who won’t conform and dare to challenge; not unique to this blog. CJ on The West Wing said it’s like One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest with a mumu wearing chainsmoker leading the crazies against McMurphy, but it’s also like high school, which is pretty much the social structure of the United States today. Really have to be totally ignorant of human nature and unobservant of your surroundings to not notice that human beings create a social hierarchy in their communities, and blogs frequented by enough regulars are a great place to see how that happens.
Well, Anthony – we can add one more to the list of things that Zal claims to be “a distinguished anthropologist with a minor in the intricacies of high school social structures.”
run_dmc, “Vast right/left wing conspiracies” and cliques, when the actually do exist, are usually trying to undermine someone of superior intelligence and relevance who’s agenda is pertinent. This is not the case here.
Zal, Obviously we are hard wired for cliques, that factor alone explains a lot about how we got stuck with Obama..
The internet seems to have brought a new level of incivility to political discourse, but then, when was it ever truly civil ? Just ask Alexander Hamilton..
I’d say “I hate to harp on this” but I don’t at all.
It’s the anonymous nature of the internet that breeds the incivility. I’ve often thought of the things I’s LIKE to say that I don’t because I use my actual name and identity. It’s stopped me from going too far on many occasions. (And yes, sometimes I go too far anyway, I know. But I’m not hiding when I do it.)
p.s. Loved the mumu wearing chainsmoker, really want to be one when I grow up..Ditching the salads and the spanx and heading for the Marlboro’s as we speak. At least I won’t have to hang around and watch Soc, Sec. go broke.