what is going on here. What has been going on here.
No, not “here” on Docudharma. But on the putatively leftist political blogs in general.
Namely, that we are being sold this oxymoronic idea of “moderate radicalism” and moderate leadership in general.
It would be nice for someone to help me bring some focus to what is more a baseline objection for me than that pointed at any particular people or personalities.
When Obama ran for president, he ran on radical ideas but his proposals were moderate. That is one reason you have such crosstalk between those who point to Obama’s campaign slogan of “Change we can believe in” versus the dichotomy of what were really very moderate at the time (and now abandoned) policy proposals.
Now we are being told that Obama is and always was a centrist, and you have people saying that criticism of him will result in his failure and in turn that would somehow be a failure of the “left”.
But change is incompatible with moderatism. We are being asked to let moderates lead the progressive movement, but they don’t lead. That is not what moderates do.
Moderates don’t bring change we can believe in. They can’t, because moderates are about finding (especially in the United States) a middle pole between mild liberalism at best and reactionary right wingedness. But they’re not about leadership.
So, why are people bringing up this proposition, that moderates are going to find a way for our country out of the wilderness, again and again and again?
The entire proposition as an entire philosophical construct — framed in such statements as “Relax, Obama’s got this” etc., etc. is ludicrous.
during the primaries with his silence when the Clintons were attacked as racists. iknew he was a liar when he voted for FISA after he said he would filibuster it. I didn’t vote for him. I did a write in on my absentee ballot.
15 comments
Skip to comment form
Author
what is going on here. What has been going on here.
No, not “here” on Docudharma. But on the putatively leftist political blogs in general.
Namely, that we are being sold this oxymoronic idea of “moderate radicalism” and moderate leadership in general.
It would be nice for someone to help me bring some focus to what is more a baseline objection for me than that pointed at any particular people or personalities.
When Obama ran for president, he ran on radical ideas but his proposals were moderate. That is one reason you have such crosstalk between those who point to Obama’s campaign slogan of “Change we can believe in” versus the dichotomy of what were really very moderate at the time (and now abandoned) policy proposals.
Now we are being told that Obama is and always was a centrist, and you have people saying that criticism of him will result in his failure and in turn that would somehow be a failure of the “left”.
But change is incompatible with moderatism. We are being asked to let moderates lead the progressive movement, but they don’t lead. That is not what moderates do.
Moderates don’t bring change we can believe in. They can’t, because moderates are about finding (especially in the United States) a middle pole between mild liberalism at best and reactionary right wingedness. But they’re not about leadership.
So, why are people bringing up this proposition, that moderates are going to find a way for our country out of the wilderness, again and again and again?
The entire proposition as an entire philosophical construct — framed in such statements as “Relax, Obama’s got this” etc., etc. is ludicrous.
during the primaries with his silence when the Clintons were attacked as racists. iknew he was a liar when he voted for FISA after he said he would filibuster it. I didn’t vote for him. I did a write in on my absentee ballot.