dagblog - Comments for "More Labels"

Read your post. Moved on in

EmmaZahn — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:18:20 +0000

Read your post. Moved on in my reader eventually reaching Walter Russell Mead's Can the L-word be Saved? advocating reclamation of the words Liberal and Progressive as quintessential descriptions of America. It begins:

Politically speaking, America may be the most confused country in the world. Millions of people in this country are conservatives and even reactionaries who think they are liberals; we have millions more liberals and radicals who call themselves conservative.

It is an unholy mess and it needs to be cleared up. It’s time for a language intervention.

Despite the mess so many “liberals” have made of this great political tradition, liberal and progressive are two of the noblest and most important words in the dictionary. They describe essential qualities of the American mind and essential values in American politics.

I put a link to his blog post in the news links but here it is again:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/12/15/can-the-l-word-be-saved/

Russell the historian provides some interesting history. Worth reading and it seems to tie in with your line of thinking.

I always liked Albert Brooks.

Richard Day — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:26:07 +0000

In reply to More Labels

I always liked Albert Brooks. Most of the time he never looks like he is acting, he makes it seem like he is making it up as he goes along.

I just discovered that he was born Albert Einstein. Can you imagine? His folks decided to name him Albert?

How in the hell did he get through the fourth grade?

And how many thousands have asked him how he did in 8th grade math?

Labels can mean a lot.

I mean, just look at the Fockers.

QE: I didn't fart. Did YOU

quinn esq — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 18:08:35 +0000

In reply to Here are a few I am

QE: I didn't fart. Did YOU fart? I think you did. He who smelt it. Oh YES you did. Did so. Smelt it first. Oh go away.

Generic We Can Believe In!

Watt Childress — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:44:15 +0000

In reply to Hi Watt,If Obama actually

Generic We Can Believe In!

Hey, Dreamer. Good list. I'll

Oxy Mora — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:42:26 +0000

In reply to Here are a few I am

Hey, Dreamer. Good list. I'll take 50% of the Anti-Low Life label and split the balance between Pro Rich and Anti-pretending.

Dan, I think you nailed it.

Oxy Mora — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:38:17 +0000

In reply to Hi Watt,If Obama actually

Dan, I think you nailed it.

Here are a few I am

AmericanDreamer — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:03:34 +0000

In reply to More Labels

Here are a few I am considering:

AD: People First. Really. (D)

AD: Anti-Market Totalitarian (D)

AD: Bold, Persistent Experimentation, All-I-Want-for-Christmas-is-Another FDR (D)

AD: Modern-day, pro real middle-class, pro-civil rights, pro just the facts ma'am, anti-demagoguery, egalitarian, full employment economic populist

AD: Anti-Phony, Unpragmatic, Deal-for-the-sake-of-deal "Bipartisanship" (D)

AD: Remember What Your Mother Tried to Teach You About Sharing (D)

AD: Anti-Bastardized Pragmatism (D)

AD: Anti Low-Life, Need-to-Get-a-Life Haters (D)

AD: Pro Rich People For Social Responsibility (D)

AD: Anti-Pretending We Have Answers to the Rest of the World's Problems When We Don't Have Answers To Our Own (D)

AD: Anti Randian Glorifier of Selfishness (D)

AD: Pro Stronger Federal Government, Stronger Social Movement Broad-Thinking Unions, Stronger Social Movements, Countervailing Excessive Corporate Power So We Can Get Some Halfway Decent Public Policy in This Country For a Change (D) [that one really sings, doesn't it?]

AD: Anti-Lazy, Uninformed But Hyper-Critical Citizenry (D)

Yes. But at least somebody'd

Obey — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:50:58 +0000

In reply to There's an old Fred Allen

Yes. But at least somebody'd be getting laid.

In theory, the "more labels"

Elusive Trope — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:19:55 +0000

In reply to More Labels

In theory, the "more labels" approach is exactly what the tea party was able to accomplish, helping people have greater clarity about the make-up of the coalition. The tea partiers were able organize themselves (and at times be organized by the powers to be) and then act as units that could officially re-affiliate themselves if they didn't receive satisfaction within their own parties. We did see them struggle with what to do when their candidate didn't win the primary - do we now support the other candidate from the coalition (namely, in this case the "establishment Republican). Moreover, as they discovered in Alaska, one sub-party may win the primary battle, only to discover a number of the party people leave to follow another candidate into "independent land."

Today the Democratic Party is as much as a coalition as it ever has been, the politicians and the citizens stretch the long spectrum from conservative to liberal. It would seem that the achievement of the majority in Congress could only have been accomplished in this way. The Republicans have their own coalition, but the spectrum is more narrowly defined. Moreover, the conflicts they do seem to have (as in the libertarian resisting the social conservatives' call for a more intrustive government) pale in their antipathy for the other side. The Republican coalition collectively sees it far more important to defeat the Democratic coalition, and thus is able to put aside its differences for the sake of beating the common enemy.

In the Democratic coalition, individual members seem to be as likely to see members of their own coalition as the enemy as they are someone from the other coalition.

The reality may be that if the Democratic coalition actually started forming their sub-parties, the conservative party might discover it is more beneficial to link with Republican coalition. At this time, I don't see any of the potential sub-parties of the Republican coalition discovering something similar about joining the Democratic coalition.

But as this points out is that the "Democrats" never had a real strong majority in the Senate. I had always hated this talk about the Dems having a super majority or close to it. Nothing could have been further from the truth. In attempting to push through a liberal agenda, one discovers that the simple majority wasn't even there.

So the issue liberal people are struggling with now is just how inclusive should our coalition become. And to what extent is it important to remain loyal to the coalition, even when one is getting the shortest straw amongst the various sub-parties. Case in point: Obama is still the leader of the Democratic coalition. For those who are on the more lefty edges of this coalition, one decide whether to stay or go. Like a tea partier or even a libertarian, joining the "other coalition" is out of the question. To go means to live on the outskirts of political power that runs through the two parties.

As one looks to the labels as the identifier, the question will always remain: who will you caucus with? Does a Fed Up With Rich People Dem accept into the fold someone who supports arms sales to other countries? Does an Egalitarian Social Contractarian Dem find it unacceptable to work with a pro-lifer?

"Govern; but don't

we are stardust — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:31:38 +0000

In reply to More Labels

"Govern; but don't overgovern." There are a couple more videos, but this was the most soporific of the three.

One thing that I find interesting is that some of us here are now considered the 'radical left'. Wow, how things have changed (ratchet, ratchet...)

http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2010/12/14/No-Labels.aspx (sorry; I'd forgotten the link)