dagblog - Comments for "How Badly Do We Want Liberal/Progressive Values?"

Yep, there are those who say

we are stardust — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 17:29:51 +0000

Yep, there are those who say FDR knew the planes were on the way, and didn't warn the base; hideous thought, isn't it? I guess as far as voting for Obama, we'll see, but as he kicks more of our (gender non-specific) huevos, like others, I can envision scenarios where he may not even be running by a general election.

WWII is very interesting.

Atheist — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 17:10:17 +0000

In reply to The Unions and many

WWII is very interesting. There are some interesting similarities (as well as many drastic differences, of course) with the Iraq War. From what I've gleaned (and I'm no historian), FDR used Pearl Harbor to justify entering the war in a manner similar to (but yet different from) how Bush used 9/11 to justify invading Iraq. In both cases, there were already plans in place. In this analogy, Afghanistan is Japan. Now, please don't get me wrong. I am against the War in Afghanistan. I want us out now. I'd vote for Obama again, but it's only because I prefer a kick to the shin to one in the gonads (if you'll pardon yet another analogy).

The Unions and many

we are stardust — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 17:01:58 +0000

In reply to I think you provided an

The Unions and many progressives see a big difference between Free and Fair policies; I confess I supported NAFTA as an engine for increased cooperation, and in a better world, trade would be beneficial to even cultural understanding and sharing. The dearth of environmental and toxic chemical uses has been disastrous, as in 'we dump our DDT to Mexico, they use it, then we import their produce'. Stupefying logic. Anyway, a discussion for another day.

I had meant especially 'opposition to these wars'; I must not have been clear. But so often on the boards I hear folks maintain that they are against them, but excuse Obma's extensions of them based on some thinking that holds no weight to me. The metrics again: a heavy majority of Americans oppose the wars, yet some 6% of people based their votes on it (not that there was much of an alternative, in any event.) Almost no one cares enough to even read. It's one of my main blogging topics, that and Empire and how its costs always have led to downfalls. Hmmm. So when people here don't see it as a problem for middle class economic pain, I am bumfuzzled.

World War II is ineresting; was it this Hedges video or another talking about the war as having different causes thanconventional wisdom speaks to, but leaving out: The Japanese Bombed Us! LOL, pretty big thing to leave out! Anyway, the Nial Ferguson The World at War series gave some counterfactuals some play, and Ferguson traced a lot of the causes of the bloody 20th century to decaying empires' faltering economics and ethnic cleansing as major causes (as well as psychotic dictators.) But yes, grey areas abound. My thing was prompted by the patchwork quilt of opinions on what things are worth fighting for, which rolling over for, but hearing we're all desirous of the same things.

I had a bit of a discussion over torture here, and was stupefied to hear some defense of it in those certain situations. WTF? I think it's undeniable that Dems we would push back harder if many of Obama's policies and actions were performed by a Republican, yet there's so much silence from 'the Left' on too many major issues. And this blog was another attempt to figure out who the hell we really are, and what we believe strongly, and what we just loosely believe.

Anyway: sorry for the yammering, but the degree to which too many of accepted Obama's disastrous tax cut bill ('He couldn't help it') and now this about social security and other 'sacrifices' the middle and under classes will bear just has me a bit crazy. And scared. thanks for your good comments, you unverified Atheist, you!

I think you provided an

Atheist — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:19:17 +0000

In reply to Certainly that was not what I

I think you provided an excellent framework for discussion, and the body of what you wrote was rich with ideas. I think you're right that we (people who consider themselves liberal/progressive) don't always agree even on the goals, let alone the methods. I'm amazed sometimes at how I've seen those words defined here - amazed, because clearly my definition is right!

On some issues, I feel the "progressive" position is clear: no to war, yes to universal health care, yes to a living wage, yes to protecting the environment.

On other issues, I feel it's less clear. For example, "free trade". It seems that most liberals here (and I could be wrong) are against it because of how it harms national labor interests. There are also reasonable environmental arguments against it. That said, one could also argue about the removal of artificial national barriers as being a good thing. I don't want to derail your primary point with a discussion of the pluses and minuses of free trade, though.

That said, as you point out, even on those "clear" issues, there's always room for gray areas. Were we right to fight the Nazis in WWII, for example? I mean, if you're against all war, all the time, the answer would be no, right? I consider myself a pretty hard-core pacifist, so this question weighs particularly heavy on me.

Anyways, you raise some good questions. I wish I had some good answers.

I had no faith to lose to

brewmn — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 14:38:11 +0000

In reply to You have kept the faith? Tell

I had no faith to lose to begin with. Prior to his election, I consistently maintained that the only thing that could prevent him from a transformational president was the bloc of conservative Democrats in the Senate. And I still view them, in cohort with an utterly despicable Republican caucus, as the primary obstacle to much better legislation. Finally, the financial crisis has not worked to his favor, and no, I don't think he could have successfully done any of the things argued for on the left without either precipitating an even worse downturn, or having every proposed solution thwarted by the Senate.

That said, he has gotten several pieces of significant legislation passed, and our foreign policy has been pretty good. So, his tenure to date has been better than the worst case scenario I envisioned prior to the election, if not as good as the best. If anything, his failures have highlighted how intractable the establishment's resistance to anything resembling progressive change has become. Hopefully, he can capitalize on that resistance in his second term.

But you're bald assertion that he is an irredeemable failure has no basis in reality. You apparently think 2008 was 1932 and we were electing another FDR. Neither of those things are remotely true. He's done as well as any Democrat could have done given the circumstances he's faced to date.

No you are not, you are a

David Seaton — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 14:12:24 +0000

In reply to Not that every volk wants to

No you are not, you are a beautiful soul.

AH...ANOTHER PERFECT ENDING

we are stardust — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:51:17 +0000

In reply to Not that every volk wants to

AH...ANOTHER PERFECT ENDING TO ANOTHER BLOG.

Not that every volk wants to

LisB — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 06:31:01 +0000

In reply to I was willing to settle on a

Not that every volk wants to sit in it.

Oh, hell, what do I know, David? I'm just a naive, clueless dumkiss.

I was willing to settle on a

LisB — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 06:10:47 +0000

In reply to Oh, and he built a swing set

I was willing to settle on a Volkswagen. I still like to think I got a Subaru Outback, but am happy that most "volks" know we got a "wagen".

Oh, and he built a swing set

David Seaton — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 06:01:18 +0000

In reply to http://www.democraticundergro

Oh, and he built a swing set for the girls outside the Oval Office

You learn something everyday.

Seriously, if somebody sold you a Ferrari and delivered a Chevy... what would you call that? The audacity of hope? If you wait patiently enough the Chevy will become a Ferrari?