dagblog - Comments for "Pondering Centrism and the 2012 Election."

That would require enough

AmericanDreamer — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:26:13 +0000

That would require enough independents holding office to demand the ability to caucus outside the partisan structure (currently, an independent is required to join a party for all practical purposes if they actually manage to win).

What would it mean for independents, the diversity of whose substantive views would make the Democratic party look like a model of lockstep unity, look like? What would they talk about?

You seem to have a relatively specific idea of what collection of policy views you would like to see independents advance. Why wouldn't that logic lead, from your point of view, to advocacy for formation of a new political party committed to advancing, roughly, those views? Why would you think electing independents would be likely to move the ball in the policy directions you favor when to be an independent in our day is to be practically defined by having no particular set of policy views likely to be widely shared with other independents?

Kerry also had some semi-big

Anonymous — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 04:28:30 +0000

In reply to I think we view Clinton in a

Kerry also had some semi-big bucks set aside for challenging cases of, or defending allegations of, vote fraud but then he couldn't concede fast enough despite good reason to look into Ohio's vote count. There is an explanation, we just don't know what it is, and speculating just makes a person a whacko conspiracy theorist.

I think we view Clinton in a

kgb999 — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 03:46:06 +0000

In reply to Centrism is killing us,

I think we view Clinton in a similar way ... but with eyes sitting in very different perspectives. The thing that bothers me most about the Clinton-to-now era is how totally dishonest Democrats are being about their (and his) role in facilitating and promoting the current situation we inhabit. No matter what their own hands do or how much power the party holds, the assertion is that they were and remain powerless to stop their own actions because of the big bad republicans or some shit. Riiiiiiiiiight.

Kerry just ran a terrible campaign. ABC went through all the trouble of sending someone to Vietnam, visiting the village where the "Swift Boat" incident occurred, viewing documentation that not only listed the VC assets deployed on that night ... but also confirmed a casualty exactly matching Kerry's descriptions and assigned exactly the weapon Kerry says he faced. They even had the guy's name ... and the village elders offered to dig up VC-era weapons that they still had buried in someone's garden. These same elders also reported that the Swift Boat guys had been through a few weeks earlier and had been given all the same information yet decided to suppress it beause it conflicted with their desired smear campaign. Kerry didn't even bother to use any of it. Inexplicable.

I think you are pretty much right about the dynamic of the current political conflict in society. I'm having a hard time envisioning how this is going to end up manifesting when it finally breaks out into the open for serious ... but I suspect things may get ugly.

The next election is for laying groundwork. We're in for a long slog here. There isn't going to be any one election that can save us.

You've got to bear in mind

kgb999 — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 03:25:44 +0000

In reply to Well I'm glad you're well

You've got to bear in mind that I have friends who were Tea Party members long before the Koch brothers came along with their Beckerhead bus tour of geriatric neocons. In many regards addressing such a reductionist caricature of the movement kind of feels like trying to discuss global warming with someone who doesn't understand or even really believe in thermometers. You don't even have a basic perspective to understand the deep animosity between the original tea party and neocons, or the implications of the Kochs et. al. drawing from that specific faction to build their media-ready knock-off. That's not to say I view them as some sort of good-policy powerhouses or anything ... but it has gotten to point where it doesn't much matter anymore.

Others had raised the line you protested as an honest question and challenged it. And in retrospect, I didn't really explain the thought behind it in the post at all. When I saw it highlighted in the new comments list, figured your questioning it would be totally fair and deserve a deeper explanation.

Now, after debating it through with others, I'm still feeling my conclusion is not off base. It is a genuinely held position and I feel the logic behind it to be well-thought-out. I honestly believe that the relativist nihilism of ideological centrism is currently the most destructive force in American politics. You may disagree with me, but in order to do so credibly you'd have to bother to try and understand what I was saying.

And yeah ... there is a retaliatory aspect in the tone I selected. This will likely be pretty much true of my tone across the board right now. Insulting and belittling my independent political beliefs (and insulting/belittling the political beliefs of Democratic liberals) is a Dagblog cottage industry and prevalent across the entire establishment Democratic commentariat. If that's the game, OK, I'll play it. One's gotta keep themselves amused. Sorry it turned ya off (but not so sorry that I won't likely do it again ... never been one to disarm unilaterally :-).

Well, at the risk of

kgb999 — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 00:54:27 +0000

In reply to I agree with you about the

Well, at the risk of torturing this metaphor to the point of breaking ....

Much of this hinges on if one thinks that the "ass" plans on kicking the murderer out of the car any time soon. If the answer is no, as I believe it to be, a win for either results in being in being stuck with an empowered murderer. That part is unavoidable.

Our options aren't between one or the other. Our options are between one or both. So, do we want to deal with a murderer while also dealing with an ass who's stolen our car and is driving the murderer around so quickly there isn't a chance in hell of ever catching them?

America needs the cop to not be an ass. If he insists on being one, he shouldn't be driving our cop car. Put that shit in the shop and get the beat cops back to work in a position where their own self-interest is in dealing with the murderers toe to toe. Sure, the murderer may have a car of their own for a bit, but at least the cops may start pulling that car over everywhere he tries to go in it again. That seems preferable to me.

As for a plan ... the plan is the same plan that every addict hates to hear and the only one that exists. If you want it to end, you have to stop taking the drug. Abandon least-worst and accept that democracy is not going to be under your control. I perceive you are asking for a plan that allows you to extract yourself from indulgent political excess without any pain of withdrawal. I don't think it's possible. We're in too deep. But the DTs just get worse from here. Vote for the best on the ballot, take the GOPper if that's what fate provides and let's move on.

I agree with you about the

Verified Atheist — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 23:53:47 +0000

In reply to Actually, I'm saying centrism

I agree with you about the future being more important than the past, with the importance of the past primarily being in its ability to inform us of the future. It's my future I'm considering when I say I'd rather be in the room with the ass (the only fucking copy with a gun in town who drove the murderer to the scene) than with the murderer. Yes, I'd rather be with someone else entirely, but unless you can give me a plan^* to make that happen…

^*I'm afraid I prefer reasonable plans.

Actually, I'm saying centrism

kgb999 — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 22:22:17 +0000

In reply to You know, I get not being a

Actually, I'm saying centrism is worse than right wing extremism.

Mangling your hypothetical (and joining in equating politics with murder ... yay); right wing extremism holds that murder is necessary to accomplish their vision and better the nation. Centrism holds that working beside right wing extremists to commit murder is fine if it helps accomplish their vision of attaining or holding personal power. Murder will be committed in both instances. Voting for either side of this equation adds your personal endorsement to it. I prefer neither and that's how I plan to vote.

I'm just saying logic dictates murder committed with an honest vision and intent of bettering the nation has a higher likelihood of improving the nation than murder committed simply for crass personal gain.

In the centrist case, even if someone else physically pulls the trigger, there is no way in hell to characterize them as a bystander. They are the only fucking cop with a gun in town yet they have driven the so-called murderer to the scene and have been standing right there cheering them on as the trigger is pulled again and again and again.

I think you are caught up on blame over the past. I don't give a shit about that. That's really not how politics work ... you are thinking of crime. Yesterday is already gone. What about tomorrow? I see throwing centrists out of office as eliminating the murder's taxicab and forcing them to at least figure out how to travel their own happy ass to the next victim.

Well I'm glad you're well

anna am — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 22:09:39 +0000

In reply to No. That's just mildly

Well I'm glad you're well too. But what you say is outrageous. If you don't fully believe it and are simply looking to give your readers (all those creep out dagblog Centrists) a take that, it's totally intellectually dishonest and what's the point of any of us going further?

If you do fully believe what you say, if you really do find this Koch Brothers fully financed enterprise credible, then I think you may be so angry at Centrism you're losing perspective. Because I'd say the real truth is that the Tea Party movement is as phony as Monopoly money, and as fresh and wholesome in its outlook as basa fish from the Mekong River.

If that's being closed minded, well, I plead guilty.

But, by the way, the reason why I started reading is that you can be thought provoking and often delineate issues with a clarity that's impressive. But here you seem to be blowharding and it turned me off. That's the long and the short of it.

No. That's just mildly

kgb999 — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:47:33 +0000

In reply to Ah now give credit where

No. That's just mildly adventurous.

Open-minded is more like being eager to read something you are likely to disagree with and challenge it on merit ... learning from those you disagree with in the process. You seem to have come in with a chip on your shoulder looking for superficial excuses to trivially dismiss what you encountered (you're welcome, I put it in the opening preamble for you). Although ... hadn't seen you around for a while so I am totally glad you did. Stoked you seem well.

Lieberman Independents?

kgb999 — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:26:01 +0000

In reply to I can't resist flogging the

Lieberman Independents? Sanders Independents? Does it matter to you?

Heh. I totally missed this in your comment the first time I read it. Sanders runs as an honest independent. A life-long Democrat who switches to independent after losing a partisan primary totally doesn't count.

What matters most is if the independent (or any rep) actually represents their constituents. But institutionally, it would be nice to push the current congressional committee assignment process away from the system of patronage and quid-pro-quo that has emerged within the current political duopoly (speaking generously, there are many indicators that we really are looking at a political monopoly leveraged using two brands in the marketplace). That would require enough independents holding office to demand the ability to caucus outside the partisan structure (currently, an independent is required to join a party for all practical purposes if they actually manage to win).