The Orwellian redefining of the meaning of the words "centrist" and "moderate" by the right wing

[Douglas Carpenter]

It is hard to argue when some one calls themselves "centrist" or "moderate" because those words imply that someone is in the middle and that their positions on issues are the middle way - the sensible way - not too far left - not too far right.

By any reasonable definition I suppose I am a centrist and a moderate. I don't believe that capitalism is all bad and I don't believe that capitalism is all good. I don't believe that socialism is all good and I don't believe that socialism is all bad. I believe there are some things better left to the private sector - while some things such as education, healthcare as well as fire and police protection are better handled by the public sector. I believe history has clearly shown that a balance between capitalism and socialism - a balance between altruism and individualism is what works best.

I don't believe that global projection of American military power is all a bad thing and I don't believe it is all a good thing. The sure size and scope of America and its interest in the world almost assures that it will be a major player on the world stage - but our own national interest as well as the issue of sustainability of international stability means that we cannot continue on the path of that we are currently on - one of endless military conflicts and quagmires.

President Obama was very honest, candid and forthcoming when he said that in the 1980's he would have been seen as a moderate Republicans. He was also very honest and candid when readily admitted on national television that President Nixon was in many way more liberal than him.

The Orwellian redefining of the meaning of the words "centrist" and "moderate" by the right wing seems to suggest that policies in line with 1980's moderate Republicans or policies closer to Richard Nixon's policies rather than New Deal/Great Society Democratic policies or something to the right of that is what is centrist and what is moderate.

This implies that finding a workable balance between capitalism and socialism - finding a sustainable foreign policy that doesn't have us in permanent military conflicts defending an unsustainable global military empire - establishing real universal healthcare such as is practiced in every other developed country in the world - Making sure our democracy is not something bought and paid for by hedge fund managers, Wall Street investment bankers and corporate lobbyist - Stopping and reversing the never ending redistribution of wealth from ordinary working people to the very few - Having a vision of an America where poverty has been at least as eradicated as it has been in most other advanced democracies - Striving to see in our time an America - socially just at home and at peace with the world - These are now seen as far left pipe dreams - although they were once mainstream opinions held by ordinary Americans - I see nothing extreme at all about this agenda - I say that in the real world it is simply being reasonable, sensible and indeed moderate and centrist.

[simak]

1. You don't think calling socialism "altruism" is just a little bit Orwellian? n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

2. George Orwell did consider himself a Democratic Socialist - so his work was certainly

not anti-socialist - I was talking about finding the balance between capitalism and socialism - individualism and altruism - that is called being reasonable

[simak]

4. I understand.

I don't disagree that a mixed economy is necessary and good.

However, socialism is not altruism. Collectivism is a better contrast to individualism. Altruism is not something that is enforced. Collectivism is.

Charity would be altruism, and it simply doesn't do the job.

[HereSince1628]

8. IMO selfishness is closer to the opposite of socialism than individualism

Many acts of altruism recognized with civilian and militarty medals are unselfish acts by individuals.

I do think that moderate and centrist have become ambiguous. The center position between progressives and teahadists would be something like the center of the entire population

The center of opinion within the democratic party is, or at least could be, imo should be something different. In two distinct subpopulations one wouldn't expect the cohorts of moderate republicans and moderate democrats to be the same thing.

Over the entire population we might expect the center of the nation to be occupied by right leaning democrats and left leaning republicans. Although, it's unclear if there is such a thing as a left-leaning republican.

[daleanime]

15. So here we go again....

please give me your definitions. What is the difference between communism and socialism?

[HereSince1628]

20. Sort of depends on whether it's run by friends or enemies...

forget the texbooks definitions....

If it's run by friends (Swedish socialism to Israeli collectives--moshavs, kibbutz) it's socialism with a small S.

If it's run by competitors or enemies (Soviet Union, China, Cuba) it's communism.

[simak]

25. I stipulate to your definitions of socialism and communism.

At issue is the definition of altruism. And I'm inclined to stipulate to your definition of that, too, but I'd need to hear what it is. So what is it?

[merrily]

53. God forbid we should all mean the same thing when we use a word.

Whoever came up with the idea of a dictionary definition should have been shot on the spot.

Truthy definitions that vary from person to person in the same discussion are far preferable to stifling individual creativity in word usage that just feels so right, even if fuzzy and bearing little to no resemblance to the dictionary definition.



Sorry. I couldn't resist.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Definitions:

Altruism: the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.

Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

[merrily]

51. You're right. From each according to his ability to each according to his need.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need

Sounds to me like the very epitome selfless altruism.*


Of course, though, that is not socialism, which is merely government ownership of the means of production. How the fruits of production are distributed by a socialist government would, I guess, be a separate issue.

*altruism unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/altruism

[simak]

75. That's not altruism.

"Unselfish" means people give of their own. It's not unselfish (or altruistic) to force someone else to give (or to take from them).

It's not even unselfish to support redistribution as an honest form of insurance since the supporter is insuring himself as well.

Altruism defines charity. Welfare is coercive. Collectivism is the most precise word for the social safety net when contrasted with individualism, and socialism is a colloquial term for any compulsory collective economic effort.

[merrily]

79. My post said not a thing about forced or voluntary.

It's not even unselfish to support redistribution as an honest form of insurance since the supporter is insuring himself as well

Not necessarily. It may not even occur to someone that he or she is also ensuring himself. Or if it does, that might not be the motive

For instance, hypothetically, I may be so rich that the furthest thing from my mind is the possibility that I might need welfare someday. Yet, I might support it, because I believe in helping others, even if it means I have to kick in my own money to bring about that result.

For example, I know a man who was too proud even to collect unemployment Yet, he never once suggested the institution should not exist, nor did he once object to having that money docked from his wages.

[simak]

81. Voluntary is implied when you use altruism.

You can view the safety net however you want. But the selling point, politically, isn't that someone else needs it. The selling point is that it will be there for you too someday. That's fully half of the social contract, and nothing to be ashamed of. It does, however diminish "altruism" as the impetus for socialism. Altruism is what makes people give to charity.

[merrily]

82. The selling point doesn't determine everyone's motivation; and motivation is what matters

when we talk about whether someone's motivation is selfish or not. As to that, the selling point is irrelevant.

Voluntary is implied when you use altruism.

So you say, but that's not what the dictionary said. Something may be required of me and my motivation for going along with that requirement can still be selfless. People don't have to go along with something simply because it's required.

Also, my original post to you said "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was selfless, without specifying with it was voluntary or involuntary. You assumed involuntary, but that is not the only context in which that sentiment prevails. There are voluntary communes and collectives. Some of the earliest European settlements in the US may have functioned that way, when members fell ill.

[simak]

83. Socialism is not charity.

The altruistic move is charity.

For people who contribute due to coercion it is not altruism. They're not being selfless, they're being obedient. The law exists specifically because people are not selfless enough. The law covers the gap between selflessness and justice.

Imagine you were the only one paying. Would you feel that others are not paying their fair share?

I think it would be your right to insist that others pay, too. But that insistence is not altruistic, because there's nothing selfless about giving away someone else's money, just as there is nothing selfless about them giving it away simply because they're obeying the law.

If the model relies on altruism then participation is voluntary. And it will come up short because people are not selfless enough. You can't overcome their lack of selflessness with a law to cover the shortfall and then claim that their selflessness has been restored. That's not the principle the law operates on. The law operates on the principle that people obey force.

Calling it altruism is a way of sugar coating it. But it is still force, and that is why it is entrusted to the institution that is uniquely authorized to initiate force. Socialism is not something we ask government to carry out because government is charitable. We ask government to implement socialism because we believe government will be fair, and because we know government is armed.

[merrily]

84. You may need to read my post 51 again. I never said socialism was charity.

Nor do any of my posts that say contributing because of coercion is altruism or charity.

Forgive me, but this exchange seems to be deep into straw man territory, which is not tempting.

[simak]

85. But you are saying that socialism is altruistic.

Look, you might think it's altruistic to support a law that will oblige you to pay. I think you've made that clear. But if the primary difference between that law and just paying out of pocket yourself is that the law will require others to pay as well, then what is the purpose of the law?

You can take credit for the good you do with other people's money. But selflessness is measured by how you got it. If you're using money they wouldn't have given you on your own you're still doing good. But that's not altruism on their part, and it not on yours either.

We should probably lose the positive connotation on altruism. It doesn't pay the bills, and too many people hide behind it.

[merrily]

86. No, I did not say that at all. You read that into what I did say.

I said socialism was government ownership of the means of production, which was a different issue. I am now repeating what I said in Reply 51, my first post to you, which I just suggested you re-read. This is not a discussion at all. Sorry, I'm out.

[simak]

89. You actually said "From each according to his ability..." was the epitome of altruism.

Last edited Mon Nov 24, 2014, 06:14 PM - Edit history (1)

And you backed that by claiming voluntary communes are altruistic. They are, but the voluntary part is essential. If it ain't voluntary, it ain't altruism.

Finally, there's the matter of context. The OP argues that individualism balanced with altruism is better than whatever Republicans are offering.

But in fact, that is exactly what they're offering - individualism balanced with the altruism of charity. 100% altruism, in fact. If you agree with me that this is a formula for starvation, and that Democrats offer a balance of individualism and something better, then I would like to hear what it is. But however altruistic it may be, I assure you that it is something other than altruism which makes it better than charity.

There is nothing wrong with saying people have obligations, responsibilities, duties to each other, and that government enforces this contract. We even consent to be governed, but that is not unique to our view.

To say the welfare state is altruistic is like saying the tax code is voluntary. Just because people are obedient, it does not mean they are selfless. And that is the principle the state operates on.

[wyldwolf]

3. hasn't there also been a redefining of the meaning of those words by the left wing?

Hardly a day goes by without some skirmish on DU on whether 'centrists' even exist. Centrism is call a 'sham,' centrists are called 'Reagan Democrats,' blah blah blah. What was that often quoted but ultimately naive Jim Hightower quote about dead armadillos?

There's a little bit of that going on in your OP. It's worded beautifully but the underlying message is 'liberals are really centrists and centrists are really right wingers.' It's another attempt to move the measuring stick. Based on my years on DU, I can see your point being taken to it's logical DU conclusion in the upcoming primary battle: Bernie Sanders is the centrist in the race!

To me, centrism isn't always looking for the middle ground on an issue. Some people really can take a conservative approach on some issues and a liberal approaches on others and are, thus, centrists.

[noiretextatique]

6. where is the middle ground on pay equity?

Or gay rights? Or the XL pipeline? Or for-profit prisons? Or police militarization?

[wyldwolf]

11. Contentious issues, to be sure

let me remind you of the final lines of my post that you are replying to:

centrism isn't always looking for the middle ground on an issue. Some people really can take a conservative approach on some issues and a liberal approaches on others and are, thus, centrists.

I can agree with you on those issues but disagree on others.

[noiretextatique]

13. OK...thanks. what other issues

Do you think there is middle ground?

[ColesCountyDem]

7. Yes, there has been.

Politically, I have always been a 'New Deal/Fair Deal' Democrat, and when I came of age politically, in the early '70s, I was considered to be slightly left-of-center. My fundamental socio-political and economic views have not changed, substantively, yet I am demonized by the right as a 'socialist' and by the left as a 'Reagan Democrat'.

It's decidedly odd, and frequently frustrating.

[Martin Eden]

9. I hope you don't mind if I try to answer your question

First of all, DU/leftwingers are not a monolithic bloc when it comes to anything, including how we view and define "centrist."

Secondly, I think it's obvious the "center" of American politics has moved steadily to the right for the last 30+ years. The so-called "centrists" (blue dog, third way, DLC, DINO) criticized in DU are indeed to the right of what was once the center. What Douglas Carpenter has eloquently attempted to do here is to describe what the true center is (or at least should be). If this is "another attempt to move the measuring stick" then it is a legitimate and very necessary move, coming after the stick has steadily -- and illegitimately -- been moved far to the right.

I say it has been illegitimately moved because the shift has been driven by false narratives coming from Faux News & rightwing talk radio and aided & abetted by a mainstream corporate media that has abdicated the responsibilities of the Fourth Estate. Today's "centrist" policies are responsible for the growing chasm of wealth inequality and endless war. The true interests of the vast majority of citizens (including teapartiers) are not being represented, and the issues Douglas commented in his OP are very reasonable, balanced, and at one time were uncontroversial moderate positions.

The biggest challenge for the Democratic Party and the key to electoral success and moving our country towards a better and more sustainable future is to move that stick back to where it belongs.

[merrily]

57. Punctuation aside, it was much more of an accusation than a question.

[baldguy]

10. The purists are out to destroy FDR's center-left Democratic coalition.

This is the same objective of the extremist RW Republicans.

[noiretextatique]

14. your hyperbolic nonsense is tiresome

What exactly are the goals of the sinister leftist agenda? To deprive women of choice? To force religion down your throat? To privatize SS! To remain dependent in fossil fuel? To give more tax breaks to the rich? To create boogeymen for endless wars? To continue imprisoning people for corporate profits? I think you've lost it.

[baldguy]

16. The "more-liberal-than-thou" nonsense is tiresome.

[noiretextatique]

21. that's in your head

And I am still waiting on your list of the horrible liberal positions that are as destructive as the rw. Put up...or shut up.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. noiretextatique asked you very good specific questions.

. I notice that the asking of specifics to those who bandy about meaningless rhetoric is a sure way to stop the blather. Worked again.

[baldguy]

24. The purists have the same objectives as the extremist RW Republicans.

I think that's a sufficient response.

[LondonReign2]

30. So in other words, you got nothin'

[merrily]

58. A lie is less than nothing.

[AgingAmerican]

35. List those objectives

...or go home.

[Marr]

39. This is the moment you lost any credibility you might have had left, just fyi.

Cite some of those issues or withdraw your claim.

[Rex]

48. This moment? NO that poster lost all credibility defending the Bush regime on DU2.

Notice they have no answer to what the big bad liberals have done to this country...if that isn't obvious trolling, then I don't know what is.

[merrily]

55. Interesting. I did not know that. Explains a lot.

[baldguy]

73. That is a fucking lie. And you are a fucking liar.

No surprise there.

[merrily]

56. I have never seen him post on anything but how much he hates the left.

That's not credibility.

[Oilwellian]

78. And...

it is such a pleasure to witness.

[merrily]

54. Again, you are at least as much of a purist as any other poster here, and much more than some.

[baldguy]

65. How am I a purist?

Compare to the people advocating Stalinist purges and anti-Democratic litmus tests. I have repeatedly stated that I will support the Democratic Party's nomination for President in 2016; compare to people who say they won't& would allow the GOP candidate to win instead.

Can you say the same?

[merrily]

66. How aren't you? (Btw, your post just gave me a purity test.)

Purist

[baldguy]

68. If you don't like purity tests, then stop trying to use them.

Until then, turnabout is fair play: Please state unequivocally that you will support the Democratic nominee for President in 2016.

[merrily]

69. Please don't be so dishonest. I have never given you a purity test.

So, this has nothing to do with turnabout or fairness.

Nor need I tell you what you can do with the the purity you are persisting in giving me.

However, you are proving my point. You just may be DU's most extreme purist.

[baldguy]

72. You're certainly on the side of the phony "progressive" purists

And to maintain your purity, you'll happily stand by and allow the GOP to dismantle every liberal advancement America has gained over the last century.

[merrily]

74. That's some pure baloney you're posting again, baldguy. At least you're consistent!

This exchange is obviously going nowhere and you seem like one of those posters who acts like not having the last word might be fatal. So, the solution seems to be for me not to reply to your next post. I hope you'll understand, though I doubt it.

[baldguy]

76. Big talk coming from someone who won't say they'll vote for the Democrat in 2016.

Who wants to sit back and do nothing while the liberal movement in America is destroyed.

What do you think happens when people like you don't vote for Democrats? Republicans win, that's what!

And that's how the GOP has remained in power for the last 30 yrs.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

77. He's just upset because his attempts to make people think it's

normal for modern Democrats to absolutely adore decades old Republican policies get pushback.

That his desire to keep dragging the 'tent' as far to the right as he possibly can to redefine what 'Democrat' means to the point where all the people who are too embarrassed to call themselves Republican can pretend to be Democrats without actually changing any of their RW positions and take over the Democratic Party is just so blatantly obvious that only a fringe group of folks who don't care what positions the Party holds as long as they've got a (D) agree with him.

[AgingAmerican]

34. Trotting out the Strawman

...as always.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. No.

Rather, there is a resistance by people to the left of 1980s Republicans and Nixon, to redefining "centrist" to being to the right of those things as described by the OP.

Fighting for Wall Street over the 99% is not "centrist" - it's far-right, and it's sick.

[Thinkingabout]

80. Radical responses are not acceptable from the right or left, no, not everyone is radical left or

Right. Governing is not accomplished by either so issues die before the firing squad. Why isn't it possible to accomplish something rather than remaining on the extreme. The minimum wage issue, we have to meet in a common ground or allow the radicals to hold this up. We have to give to get, it isn't all take or all give.

[LondonReign2]

29. No, the entire point of the OP

which you seemed to have missed either intentionally or accidently, is that the country had been dragged so far to the right that "centrism" now means 1980's Republican economic policy and right-of-Nixon "liberalism". And calling these right-wing policies "centrism" gives them a surface veneer of respectability.

[Martin Eden]

31. Exactly! n/t

[LondonReign2]

36. Yes, and that poster is fully aware of the fact - and likes it that way

He spends every post shitting on progressives, and told me flat out the Democratic party should move further to the right to attract more conservative voters to replace liberals.

I don't understand how he hasn't been tombstoned.

[merrily]

61. You don't understand?

Although facts may have a liberal bias, the same may not be true of DU.

[merrily]

59. Bam. Nailed it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

43. thank you Mr. Wolf I will interpret your words as a compliment

Since I am in fact autistic I sometimes don't always interpret other people quite correctly.
But I am reasonably certain that you have a good heart and mean well. I always enjoy interacting with you and am flattered when you respond to my post. BTW: If Hillary becomes the nominee in 2016 - I will of course support her in the general election. I might be an ideologue and a propagandist - but I am not stupid. As Gary Hart once said in 1984 when he conceded the nomination fight to Fritz, "Ronald Reagan provides for us all the unity we need." - So does Reagan's legacy.

[wyldwolf]

44. ^ ^ YUP ^ ^

[merrily]

60. Yet, in 2008, each of Hillary and Obama included Reagan on her and his list

of ten best Presidents in all of US history. No one trying to be taken seriously omits Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln or FDR and few omit Truman. So, in essence, Obama gave Reagan on of five open slots. And Hillary understandably (to her) included Bill on her list, so she gave Reagan one of four slots.

So, how does that fact play into Reagan providing Democrats all the unity we need to get behind Hillary?

[Armstead]

45. Most if the criticism is of phony "centrism" in quotes

I can see your point t, but I think you are misconstruing what some here (myself included) mean when we criticism "centrism" in the contemporary usage in Democratic politics.

The OP addresses that directly.

The issue of "redefining" centrism or moderate is when the term is misused to disguise what is actually right-wing corporate conservatism -- or a repudiation of policies that have traditionally been liberalism.

For example, when "centrist" Democrats supported the extrene deregulation of the 1990's, that was actually right wing free market Alan Greenspan conservatism writ large. It removed the protections of consumers snd undermined the common good to give Big Money more power to abuse and steal from the public. That in turn led to todays frightening cincentration of wealth and power.

TRUE centrism would not have sold out the middle class and poor like that. True centrism would be the recognition that some degree of regulation is necessary.

[merrily]

52. Centrists and Republicans moved the measuring stick by calling every Democrat a liberal.

Even calling them socialists or dishonestly implying they were socialists.

The rest of us are now finally trying to move the measuring stick back to where it once belonged.

Get back, get back.
Get back to where you once belonged
Get back, get back.
Get back to where you once belonged.
Get back measuring stick. Go home
Get back, get back.
Get back to where you once belonged
Get back, get back.
Get back to where you once belonged.

FDR, Humphrey, LBJ, Humphrey, all Democrats. Those to their left, liberal Democrats. Those to the left of liberals, socialists.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025819189#post66

But, kudos for having made an Orwellian post on a thread about Orwellian sentiments. Nicely done!

[RiverLover]

70. +1 ~nt

[billhicks76]

5. Dude

Just don't vote for Democrats who push the middle further right. That center keeps moving.

[daleanime]

17. K&R....

Good post.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. 1980's moderate Republicans- Orwellian term indeed.

They were racist, sexist, anti gay, science denying members of the religious right who presided in silence over the deaths of thousands.
1980's moderate Republicans. No such thing. Enough of the revisionism.

[woo me with science]

23. Huge K&R. They are not "centrists." They are extremists dismantling democracy itself.

I could not agree with you more strongly:

Yes, the use of the word "Centrism" for THESE policies is Orwellian as hell
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025246398#post11

"Centrism" to me carries a deliberate connotation of being "in the center"..in other words, not extreme in either direction. Ditto for the word "moderate," which is constantly used to describe Third Way politicians whose policies are anything but moderate in the traditional sense of the word.

Austerity and attacks on safety nets in a country that has already devastated its middle class are opposed by over 80 percent of Americans across party lines, yet these Third Way economic positions are nevertheless described as "centrist," as though they fell in the mainstream of American opinion. Policies coming out of our government now routinely bear little resemblance to what people have repeatedly stated in polls that they want, and neoliberal politicians lie their way through campaigns because they realize how unpopular their positions really are...yet we persist in calling them "centrists."

Secret laws, secret courts, "Kill Lists"/indefinite detention without due process, and mass surveillance in the United States of America are extreme violations of our Constitution and should not be considered "moderate" positions in any sense of the word. They are extreme, even fascistic policies, yet the politicians who espouse them are permitted by us to describe themselves as "moderates."

I think we need to start using the words, "corporatist," "extreme," and even "fascist" to describe what is happening in this country under the corporatist/neoconservative/neoliberal/Third Way agenda. We are witnessing a malignant merger of state and corporations and the active dismantling of important Constitutional protections. The corporate state is pouring our tax dollars into propaganda and marketing for their agenda, and IMO the vast majority of Americans, while aware of their own economic pain, have little understanding of the peril facing our democratic institutions and basic Constitutional protections.

We use words that suggest the current neoliberal and neocon policies are business as usual in America...just another flavor of policies that Americans can trust still fall safely within the boundaries of a democratic, constitutional, representative political system. They are "centrist" or "moderate." But they really aren't...and I think we need to adjust our labels to drive home the seriousness of the crisis we face.

Let's not forget what we are really dealing with. The Third Way was NEVER a grass-roots phenomenon. It is a deliberate, Wall-Street bankrolled infiltration of the Democratic Party.

Their agenda *and* their relentless propaganda are all part of a deliberate, treasonous corporate coup of democracy:

When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556

When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432

GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116

The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121

[djean111]

27. Yes indeed. Spot on. n/t

[hifiguy]

33. This, a thousand times.

Hey woo, could you PM me with a link to your chilling list of atrocious policies on which the parties agree. appended it, with credit to you, to an essay I posted last week and have had a couple of requests for a link to the original. Thanks!

[polichick]

49. I hope Sanders runs and talks about the forces that are "dismantling democracy" -

People intuit that it's happening but need to hear leaders talk about it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

50. thanks for your links with some enlightening details

[stone space]

26. Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.

Here I am stuck in the middle with you.

[polichick]

47. Ha! That song often comes to mind when thinking about politics.

[Faryn Balyncd]

28. +1000.... This redefining is perhaps the most consequential accomplishment of RW propaganda.\, and

... the dystopian reality we now witness daily, with Right Wing propaganda memes being promulgated daily by pseudo-"centrist" mouthpieces at NPR and all the corporate media ("liberal" media according to the RW Newspeak), is far more damaging than the daily lies of the acknowledged RW demagogues.


The most damaging effect of the subversion of our language by the RW occurs when the basic cultural assumptions and definitions are perverted, shifting the Overton Window so that the reasonable political options are totally off the table, and leaving reasonable people with the massive task of reconstructing the corrupted language if we are to regain influence.


Thanks for a most relevant OP.

[hifiguy]

32. For the last thirty years, the M$M has been industriously redefining

the range of Acceptable Opinions which Deserve to Be Taken Seriously ever rightward. This has clearly been by design. The institutional Democratic Party is now to the right of where the pre-Raygun Repubs were. Dwight Eisenhower, a centrist if ever one there was, would be viewed as being barely within the bounds of acceptability today. As FDR said, nothing in politics happens by accident; if it happens, it was planned to happen.

[Marr]

37. I've always thought "centrist" should refer to the spectrum of debate within the *party*.

So a "centrist" Republican would be someone who is in the middle of the far right wing of the party, and the left edge of the party (not that there really is one these days).

Our two parties claim to represent completely opposite approaches to things like macroeconomic issues. There is no middle ground between trickle down and Keynesian economics.

[AgingAmerican]

38. "Centrist"

...means you ascribe to half Democratic and half Republican policies. I have yet to find a "Centrist Democrat" willing to list which Republican policies they support.

[Marr]

41. Yeah-- that's weird, isn't it?

Quick to call people "purists", but never seem to cite the ways in which they themselves are not "pure".

[merrily]

64. baldguy is one of the most extreme purists who posts at DU.

Somehow, though, the poor dear has come to assume that "purist" is somehow synonymous with "left."

A

[merrily]

62. At DU, many claim to be liberals, even, lately, democratic socialists or socialists, but, you know,

the sane, unsilly, realistic kind, who realizes that it is impossible for anyone left of David Brooks to be elected.



Whatever posters may think of baldguy, at least he is quite truthful about hating the left.

[brooklynite]

71. Policies aren't "Democratic" and "Republican"...

They're arguably conservative or liberal, and centrism would be the approach of finding a middle ground between them. Or do you, like conservatives, believe that negotiation is always a bad word?

[AgingAmerican]

87. Negotiation is a bad word

When only one side does so in good faith. Side A continually bending over for, and capitulating to, side B is bad. The 'negotiations' we have had the last few years have driven everything further and further to the right and damaged the country. The sequester is a good example of what negotiating with fascists brings us.

[Mnemosyne]

40. K&R for more visibility. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

42. thanks --

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. "Everything faded into the mist. The past was erased. The erasure was forgotten. The lie became

truth." -- George Orwell.

[merrily]

63. With all due respect to Orwell, the lie never becomes the truth.

It's always the lie, no matter how many people come to believe it, or claim to.

The world was never flat, even when everyone on the planet assumed it was, and was too worried about falling off the edge to venture very far.

[True Blue Door]

67. First step is to stop caring how the right-wing defines anything.

By reacting to their definition rather than simply acting on your own, you make an up-front concession that undermines the impact of the otherwise highly important points you make.

Reality does not depend on what right-wingers think, or what the media reports, so base your own statements only on direct representation of reality. The only way to neutralize false premises is to bypass them completely, not argue with them.

I suppose I am a moderate by virtue of supporting the concept of moderation, but I am also a liberal and a progressive. And not even the slightest bit centrist, because I don't give a fuck where any given opinion of mine falls on a statistical distribution.

[woo me with science]

88. kick

[woo me with science]

90. kick

[madfloridian]

91. Nice post.