November 2, 2006


Abandoning the See-Saw of Centrism (Sally Kohn, November 2, 2006, AlterNet)

If you listen closely this election season, you can hear the sound of Democratic candidates scraping their bottoms in a hasty rush toward the center. But the reasoning is unclear. In a political climate where once-preposterous, archconservative ideas are now the status quo, shifting the political center of balance to the middle would only aid that Right-wing tilt. As the center of politics is masqueraded as the new left, the right becomes the new center.

If Democrats seem generally allergic to articulating moral convictions and standing up for what they believe, election season exacerbates this condition.

The problem is that their convictions are amoral and they're running in a moralist society, which is why they have to keep their ideology so carefully hidden in order to be competitive.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 2, 2006 10:55 AM

Rush commented earlier today that Nancy Pelosi has not been seen in public since Oct. 21. Sounds like Dick Cheney and his secret bunker, no?

Posted by: jim hamlen at November 2, 2006 2:00 PM

. . . and Harry Reid is in a Nevada gopher hole.

Posted by: obc at November 2, 2006 6:28 PM

The older you get, the longer the plastic surgery scars take to heal.

Posted by: erp at November 2, 2006 6:59 PM

All this assumes that the Democrats represent "the left" of whatever kind of political continuum that one might imagine. Both parties are right-wing of various intensities towards the issues that really matter; their issues of difference are performed as an elaborate dance for each to please the more easily fooled constituents.
So, Democrat/Republican voters fall for the same good cop/bad routine in yet another election cycle, and everyone left of them (the majority of American, who don't vote) are seen less and less of their interests reflected in the militant corporatism that has a stranglehold on American democracy via the two-party system.

Posted by: Mo at November 2, 2006 8:25 PM


And Ralph Nader, mighty (stealthy) shareholder who has never disclosed his finances, is the saint of American politics, no? Or perhaps you lean more towards Dennis Kucinich? Or Ron Paul?

Please don't say Lyndon LaRouche.

Posted by: ratbert at November 2, 2006 9:12 PM

It's America--it goes without saying that no seriously leftwing party could ever be competitive. We believe in liberty, not equality.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2006 9:28 PM

OJ: Yes, but having one without the other is like having a car without gas.

Posted by: Mo at November 2, 2006 10:52 PM

He shouldn't be given a car either.

The notion that these genocidal dictators deserve a chance to spew their hatred is morally inane.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2006 11:00 PM

Ratbert: I don't particularly admire anyone you mentioned, but I will say that there are members of the two parties that I would vote for.
Even if an independent/3rd party won the presidency, he would have the entire House and Senate working against him; the problem is a little more than Ralph Nader can handle.
OJ: And chanting behind one abstract concept or the other is as logically fallacious as holding up a banner that says "GOOD!".

Posted by: Mo at November 2, 2006 11:08 PM

OJ: Once again you're right. BUT....
If we wanted to make it look like a fair trial, why wasn't it really a fair trial?

Posted by: Mo at November 2, 2006 11:10 PM

Exactly. Demanding that an admittedly unwarranted trial be flawless is illogical.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2006 11:14 PM

You lost me. Who wanted it to look like anything? It's all been rather pro forma.

Posted by: oj at November 2, 2006 11:16 PM