One of your best yet. I have nothing but agreement with you. My idealism takes daily body blows, now not only from the repub lackwits, but also from the "Fighting" Dems that charged ahead just to get in line again for their govt handout.
Barring inciting Revolution that would tear our nation apart, I don't know what else would grab these fools attention. Sometimes I want to bleed for my country's freedom and other times I look at my countrymen and, disgusted, wonder if I should just let it die at the hands of the lackwits.
Leaves me wondering who amung Democrats (beside the ones that immediatly come to mind--Hillary/Biden/Lieberman/Schumer) you think have trended toward the Right since November...I think highlighting these examples would be helpful. I guess you could say that I myself have trended right since the Election, even before. Once the critical thinking ball gets rolling alot of the rhetoric of the "Left" can be just as suspicous as that of the Right...well, maybe that's a bit of an exageration, but I've seen much that has been less than desireble lately in the blogosphere and beyond.
The issues need to be boiled down and detached from politics. The message needs to be clear and universal.
Yep, I couldn't agree more. Now I get to say this in the appropriate place: great post.
In my opinion, a part of the partisanship problem that often gets overlooked is poor American voter participation. Half of Americans of voting age vote in a given election, (some of the worst numbers in the world) and who do you suppose the half is that do vote? Folks like us: politically active people who're usually partisan to one degree or another. The candidates get to pander, we tend to respond, (I mean, what else have we got?) and when they're elected they do what they want and start the cycle again.
Re-engaging that other half of America in the voting process, the half that evidently has no agenda of any kind, would go a long way towards mitigating our polarization, again IMO. In fact I'm pretty confident that most of our politicians like things the way they are, because simply focusing on their base rather than crafting a, as Fred said, "universal" message, makes their lives much easier.
So part of the solution lies in bringing common sense, by way of nonaligned, truly unbiased voters, back into the process.
Another part of the solution is just to continue yanking that Overton Window back towards the center. As you note, we're waaay right, and we got that way due to a very long, very coordinated effort from the Republicans. It stands to reason that dragging us back towards the middle is going to take at least as long and concerted an effort. In this area, I look to the greats who forced a leftward tack in their own eras against all odds - MLK jr. for example. We have their "universal" messages and methods at our disposal, but you may notice few of us use them. I'd say that's one of the reasons we aren't reaching a universal audience.
But, again, this is all just my opinion. Thanks for the thought-provoking post.
Fred,
I said democrats with a small D. I was referring to some of the public that aligns themselves with the Democratic party. This new crop of "left"-leaning people are not too much different than the right.
When the story about the kid who was tazered came out, people on both sides repeated the bull that he should have gotten up.
When the subject of Jose Padilla comes up, there are some people at left-leaning blogs that say that we shouldn't take up his cause because he is an unsavory character. (but why does that mean that you can treat someone unconstitutionally?)
When the subject of Watada comes up, a large segment of these supposedly left leaning people cry about how he deserves everything he gets and how we can't support him because he undermines the military. (no different than the right)
cont...
I guess the right leaning I am talking about is more of a pulse you feel. I cannot identify individual people (although, the list you give is a good example). It is almost as if the collective consciousness of the country keeps moving to the right. (or at least the collective consciousness of the internet masses)
I am sorry you have moved to the right. I have moved to the left. Of course, I am far more left than any "left-wing" party here in America. I am a civil libertarian with a hint of socialism. I have no party, no voice, and no peer group. (However, I do get along well with Canadians)
Does that clear anything up? Because I know this post lacks cohesiveness. It was more of a flow of consciousness experiment at 3 in the morning.
I hope I didn't imply it lacked "cohesiveness." If anything my comment was guilty of such. I think we have to all stop using the "left," "Right" thing. Polarity is in flux. Some of what we are all feeling is summed up well here:
Did the Political World Change in November?
Fred:
No, I didn't mean to make it seem that you implied that. I was saying that it lacked cohesiveness. It was really a stream of consciousness type post.
Btw, thanks for the article. It was excellent.
busker said:
"So part of the solution lies in bringing common sense, by way of nonaligned, truly unbiased voters, back into the process."
While I agree that we need to get more people involved in the process of voting and actually participating in our democracy, I have to disagree with the assertion that any of these people would be "truly unbiased" or even necessarily comprised of common sense.
These people are not isolated from media. They get their Fox and CNN, or if they are not network news people, they get their local news. Everyone has biases. And unfortunately, the masses that do not vote are probably not informed. How can an uninformed person make an unbiased decision, or any decision? And could an uninformed opinion ever be called common sense?
The real difficulty is the fact that as long as we only have two parties, there will be polarization. To get a universal message, would mean to have only one party. To get a universal, all encompassing government that gives everyone a voice, would require numerous parties. There will never be a universal message that will unite 300 million people. There are just too many differing views. A parliamentary type government may be more fitting for a country as diverse as ours.
Also, this country needs more education and less television garbage. We have entered an age of information warfare where we get opposing propaganda and few facts. Rumsfeld once said that the center of gravity is in America. I tend to believe that he meant it exactly the way it seems. There is a war of ideas going on right now. And, unfortunately, facts and reality are the casualties of this war.
Somehow, the right wing has decided that they can create their own reality. It is seen as biased to call them out on factual inaccuracies and blatant lies. "Fair and balanced" television has blurred the lines between facts and propaganda. We are in trouble if we continue to play their game. That's all for now.
Fade,
Thanks for the comment. Feel free to contribute further to the conversation.
While I agree that we need to get more people involved in the process of voting and actually participating in our democracy, I have to disagree with the assertion that any of these people would be "truly unbiased" or even necessarily comprised of common sense.
Perhaps the problem here was my use of the words "unbiased" and "common sense." I know they're loaded, but my intention is to take them back from the right wing. My apologies if their application rendered that sentance trite and unclear, which they evidently did. What I meant was, if we can get large numbers of new voters into the process who're entirely issue-driven instead of party-loyalty-driven, that would make all of our representatives more responsive. It would also lead to the creation of new and various issue-driven parties, which segues neatly into...
To get a universal message, would mean to have only one party.
Not necessarily, because I'd consider...
To get a universal, all encompassing government that gives everyone a voice, would require numerous parties.
... to be a universal message. The message is something like "in America, what we have in common are our differences," or "The more we're all different from one another, the more American we are." Universal, (it speaks to everybody because it includes everybody) common sense, (as you note, it's absurd that in a country this diverse we have only two viable political parties) and unbiased. (it sure ain't biased to say that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans nor any other single party should have ovewhelming power) Yep, that's a winning issue in my model, and I completely agree that we need about 20 to 50 other competitive political parties. The more the merrier.
On "Fair and balanced" Fox, again, I use right wing verbage on purpose. This is because words like "unbiased," "responsibility," "fairness," and many others, along with the concepts they're meant to represent, are 1) important to me, 2) powerful, and 3) a part of the english language, and if there's one thing I'm as defensive about as my Constitution, it's my language. These words belong to me and to us, certainly not the right wing noise machine, and I aim to make that point by using them with abandon until they no longer evoke images of Billo and Rush. In fact, on the subject of solutions, taking back our language is, to me, crucial to our recovery.
And not incidently, these words also work wonders on Republicans.
So I don't think we really disagree on much, if anything, but I'll rely on you to make that determination.
I think we do agree on most things. I was not trying to criticize you, I was just throwing some things out there. That is how I debate with my husband. We banter back and forth and throw ideas out there and point out contradictions and sometimes get into a heated argument over detail. I guess it is hard for me to get out of that frame of mind.
"What I meant was, if we can get large numbers of new voters into the process who're entirely issue-driven instead of party-loyalty-driven, that would make all of our representatives more responsive."
I would hope so, but I am not certain. It seems that our government doesn't care that much about what the constituency wants. At least 70% of the country wants out of Iraq and something like 80% of the country would like to see national health care, yet the government seems to ignore these issues to a large degree.
Bush has basically said that he could care less about what the American people want. It seems that to get anything done, we would need to scrap everything and start over.
"The more we're all different from one another, the more American we are."
I wish that this was a universal message, but I have a feeling that there are large numbers of the right that would not see this as a positive message. Which is one of the main problems in this country. We have a rabid extremist right wing fringe that is allowed to frame everything that goes on in this country. It would seem that one could just ignore such a small segment of the country, but as long as the media gives their views priority on radio and television, they will still have a lot of power over issues in this country.
"In fact, on the subject of solutions, taking back our language is, to me, crucial to our recovery."
Yes, this is true. We must do better at the rhetorical battle. Which really means that we should not play along with their rhetoric. That is the first step to getting our language back.
There are many mistakes people make that fall right into the trap that the right sets.
One example:
The right calls the left traitors and says that they are loony and hate America. Some asshole centrist liberals start distancing themselves from 'the left' and starts calling themselves 'progressives'. On threads they make sure to let the conservatives know that they are not those 'evil liberals', but instead, they are progressives. The just lost the battle of the words once they conceded to the right's redefining of the term.
I see people doing it all the time. Instead of standing up and defending something by calling out the lies of the right, they start repeating them.
Another good example:
I am anti-war, but I am not like those 'evil liberals' during the sixties that spit on the troops. On the contrary, I support and love the troops.
That is repeating several lies that have been planted and spread by the right. One, you say are unlike the majority of liberals because you don't hate the troops. So, by default, you have just repeated the republican talking point that most liberals hate the troops. Plus, you are helping spread the lie that troops were spit on during the Vietnam era. When, on the contrary, the troops made up a large contingent of the anti-war crowd and there has never been one documented case of a spitting incident ever happening.
Language is very important right now. For too long, we have let these war mongers and fear merchants redefine our own language.
Commenting by HaloScan
